We're all athiests...

Originally posted by dryhump
I disagree that no problem arises from denying the existence of god. I think you only need to look around at all the problems the world is facing today to see evidence of this. However, you probably consider that a theological argument. I guess the question that has to be answered is was the universe created on purpose or at random? I contend that people ...[text shortened]... curence are making a much bigger leap of faith than a person who says it was created on purpose.

First things first.

You said that all the problems the world is facing today is the evidence that "god" exists; wel, in my opinion the differ problems the humanity faces today are all caused by the Human. "God" is an invenion of the Human😵

Originally posted by black beetle
First things first.

You said that all the problems the world is facing today is the evidence that "god" exists; wel, in my opinion the differ problems the humanity faces today are all caused by the Human. "God" is an invenion of the Human😵

I already yielde up that you would dismiss my claim, on to the second point.

Originally posted by dryhump
I already yielde up that you would dismiss my claim, on to the second point.

There is no "second point" once you cannot deny that "god" is invented by the Human😵

All in all, "god" is the product of the Human ignorance and fantasy triggered by means of theoplacia😵

Originally posted by black beetle
There is no "second point" once you cannot deny that "god" is invented by the Human😵

I do deny that god is invented by humans. My whole line of questioning should make this clear. I will try again. The universe exists. This we are absolutely sure of. Whether you believe it just burst into being or that it was created on purpose is the discussion I am trying to have. More specifically, why you believe it is more rational to believe it appeared due to random chance.

Originally posted by dryhump
I do deny that god is invented by humans. My whole line of questioning should make this clear. I will try again. The universe exists. This we are absolutely sure of. Whether you believe it just burst into being or that it was created on purpose is the discussion I am trying to have. More specifically, why you believe it is more rational to believe it appeared due to random chance.

In my opinion each religion is the result of the evolution of the fixed expression of the devastation of the Human before Death together with the fixed expression of the admiration of the Human before Life, mixed with low awareness of the Science, of the Knowledge and of the understanding of the Human nature.

Therefore I think that your whole line of questioning is meaningless😵

...for the agent that causes "your whole line of questioning" is just your religion; however religion is a mix of theological, thus irrational doctrines, all aiming to establish the false impression that “god” exists and has to be worshiped from the so called “sinful human beings”.

Well I just reject the whole idea because it cannot be backed up neither by Science nor by Philosophy😵

Originally posted by dryhump
I do deny that god is invented by humans. My whole line of questioning should make this clear. I will try again. The universe exists. This we are absolutely sure of. Whether you believe it just burst into being or that it was created on purpose is the discussion I am trying to have. More specifically, why you believe it is more rational to believe it appeared due to random chance.

….why you believe it is more rational to believe it appeared due to random CHANCE.
..…(my emphasis)

Are you aware that the standard big bang theory does NOT say nor necessarily imply that “it appeared due to random CHANCE”?
I don’t think you have understood what most of us who both accept and understand basic science necessarily believe. I both accept and understand basic science and yet I don’t particularly believe that “it (the universe) appeared due to random CHANCE”! -I see no scientific evidence for this. Incidentally, saying something isn’t produced randomly doesn’t imply that it has a “purpose”.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Much depends on how you define "evidence". Christians would say that there is plenty of evidence , but Atheists do not accept it because they are either looking for something conclusive or scientific. That's fine , but to a Christian there is lots of evidence , you just need the eyes to see it.

….but to a Christian there is lots of evidence , you just need the EYES to see it.
..…(my emphasis)

Isn’t the words “the EYES” above just a metaphor for “blind faith”?
“blind faith” is NOT “evidence“!!!!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….why you believe it is more rational to believe it appeared due to random CHANCE.
..…(my emphasis)

Are you aware that the standard big bang theory does NOT say nor necessarily imply that “it appeared due to random CHANCE”?
I don’t think you have understood what most of us who both accept and understand basic science necessarily b ...[text shortened]... s. Incidentally, saying something isn’t produced randomly doesn’t imply that it has a “purpose”.[/b]

Don't you see the basic problem with what you are stating? Science will never be able to explain what started the universe. They might say the big bang. Okay, so what caused the big bang? Well, the big bang was caused by a chemical reaction or a gigantic star that went supernova or whatever. Okay, so where did the chemicals come from? How did the star get there? In other words, how were the conditions set that led to the big bang?

Here are definitions to help you At Random: without definite aim direction rule or method

On Purpose by intent, INTENTIONALLY (webster's emphasis, not mine)

Originally posted by dryhump
Don't you see the basic problem with what you are stating? Science will never be able to explain what started the universe. They might say the big bang. Okay, so what caused the big bang? Well, the big bang was caused by a chemical reaction or a gigantic star that went supernova or whatever. Okay, so where did the chemicals come from? How did the star get ...[text shortened]... direction rule or method

On Purpose by intent, INTENTIONALLY (webster's emphasis, not mine)

Religious "explanations" are a product of ignorance, thus they are not explanations at all😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Religious "explanations" are a product of ignorance, thus they are not explanations at all😵

So you have stated. You're not really adding anything to the discussion at this point.

Originally posted by dryhump
So you have stated. You're not really adding anything to the discussion at this point.

There 's nothing to be added -at the philosopical and the scientific field, that is😵

Originally posted by dryhump
Don't you see the basic problem with what you are stating? Science will never be able to explain what started the universe. They might say the big bang. Okay, so what caused the big bang? Well, the big bang was caused by a chemical reaction or a gigantic star that went supernova or whatever. Okay, so where did the chemicals come from? How did the star get ...[text shortened]... direction rule or method

On Purpose by intent, INTENTIONALLY (webster's emphasis, not mine)

….Science will never be able to explain WHAT started the universe.
.… (my emphasis)

What is the premise for your belief that there exists a thing that “WHAT started the universe”?

….Okay, so what caused the big bang?
..…

According to the main stream scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe-there was no ‘cause’ for the universe.
That is because for there to be a ‘cause’ of an event there has to be a ‘before’ the event and, according to the main stream understanding of the beginning of the universe, there was no ‘before’ the universe because time began at the start of the universe.

….In other words, how were the CONDITIONS SET that led to the big bang?
.… (my emphasis)

The “CONDITIONS SET” when? -‘before’ the big bang?

…Here are definitions to help you At Random: without definite aim direction RULE or method
..… (my emphasis)

Aren’t the laws of physics “rules”?
Isn’t the behaviour of the universe assumed to be constrained by just such “rules” right from the beginning of time thus it is not completely “random” ? (although, of course, there may be random elements within it ONCE changes had a chance to occur within it -but that would have occurred AFTER its beginning)
In order for something to be correctly defined as being “caused randomly”, doesn’t there have to be some alternative way it ‘could’ have been but wasn’t?
Can you give an example of how else the universe ‘could’ have been right at the beginning of time before any changes had a chance to occur within it? -if not, then how do you know that it is not impossible for the universe to have been in any other way/condition other than what it was right at its start thus it wasn’t “caused randomly”?
And for something to be “caused randomly”, doesn’t it have to have a “cause”? -the universe is assumed to be uncaused according to main stream scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe thus it is implicitly and generally assumed that it wasn't “caused randomly”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….but to a Christian there is lots of evidence , you just need the EYES to see it.
..…(my emphasis)

Isn’t the words “the EYES” above just a metaphor for “blind faith”?
“blind faith” is NOT “evidence“!!!![/b]

Nope , it's not a metaphor for blind faith. It's a metaphor for seeing the world in a spiritual way , sensitive to how the Spirit is working.