Um, for the most part yes, you don't seem to grasp the concept of an intelligent deity, an object of potential matter does not make sense! Where did it come from? Can you give me an example of anything in this universe that has existed without conception of some type? Any examples?



How so? Since when did an object make for itself descions and processed thoughts? If it cannot think or have some type of intellectual emotion, I would imagine that is some type of bound it would be limited by, wouldn't you say?

Because if this inanimate object is capable of creating the masses, I can then easily become more signifigant than the object itself, I'm a human with an intellect, if that object can create the universe, imagine what I can do just by harnassing it's roots and in addition adding intellect to it's extension? I would be more powerful than the object that created the universe itself, it's that simple.



Okay, so that's a stage in the process, it has little to do with the source or the beginning.

I dont know... I mean, if the inanimate object that I set fourth created the universe, why ask such a question as to where it came from?



Ah, but this sounds a bit fishy doesn't it?



No, you are right there, I cannot argue the fact that theists have gone to the areas of boasting with arrogance, they do this not realizing that all men are created equal, they're the type of people that didn't abide to religious teachings of morality and followed their own ways, then they authorized it as "signed by God."



I was saying in terms of explaining it in such a way as to say humans can figure out anything without the existence of a deity, that's what I've been getting at.



Alright then, that can be a very true statement, but the only equation atheists can use in such a defence is by explanation of terms scientifically, otherwise everything else is even a more mistakened flaw.



If an atheist neither acknowledges God, nor respects him, than to go on as such would be elevating to his status, because he is non-existant to an atheist.



The same thing can be said about the morality and spiritual affairs that the religious are often atuned too, an atheist in their eyes is someone who abadones life to seek after his own ego, which is in a way, quite possibly a living death.

Exactly, God (we are speaking about the Judeo-Christian God here) is a SUPERNATURAL BEING. He stands outside of all understanding and is Creator of everything else.

On the other hand, if your argument is that there is no God, then all you have, all you can use in your argument is the universe and everything (matter/energy/information) contained within the universe. Therefore, the "primordial seed" (the infinitesimal particle of energy which somehow exploded and produced everything in the universe) must obey the basic natural laws of matter/energy: It's a zero sum game, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted from one to the other, but that's it.

Which leaves you with the conundrum: Where did that initial bit of energy/matter come from and how did that infinitesimal particle produce everything in the universe?

And if you say it leaked from another universe, or was the remnant of a previous universe all you do is move the question one step backward: Where did that universe come from? and the one before that? and the one before that?



I refer you to the statement above. By it's very nature, it is invalid to argue that an inanimate object (matter/energy) is not limited by any bounds. It is limited by the laws of nature. Zero-sum. It had to be created by something else because matter/energy cannot create/destroy matter/energy just convert it from one to the other. Round and round we go.



Yes, that's right. A belief in God, in effect is an admission that you are NOT the master of your soul ruler of all you see, but a pile of dust with breath at the mercy of his Creator. An atheist, by his nature is saying that he is the only credible arbiter of his morality. He may allow another person to lead him, but it is still his choice, no one else can "make" him.



The theist does believe that this intellect has been given to use by God. The atheist does not, he basically believes that the intellect is there for no reason, just a freak of nature, and therefore, the atheist can use his intellect to theorize about the universe, but only because he wants to not because he was meant to.



The people who dismissed the idea of a round earth were not all religious. Apparently, it was the accepted belief of that time for everyone.

Additionally, let's not forget that the age of the Earth has not been proven. There are theories, but none can be proven because the Scientific Method breaks down if you cannot have independent observations and independently repeatable experiments.

Hmmm, couldn't have said it better myself.

[quote]
Um, for the most part yes, you don't seem to grasp the concept of an intelligent deity, an object of potential matter does not make sense! Where did it come from? Can you give me an example of anything in this universe that has existed without conception of some type? Any examples?
[/quote]

Umm, it is you who does not grasp the concept of the BBT and physical laws. Yes I can give you an example of something in this universe that has existed without conception of some type. Energy. But since we're talking about something that created the universe, it does not even need to be part of this universe! So... what were you saying?

[quote]
How so? Since when did an object make for itself descions and processed thoughts?
[/quote]

Who said it did? I certainly did not.

[quote]If it cannot think or have some type of intellectual emotion, I would imagine that is some type of bound it would be limited by, wouldn't you say?
[/quote]

That does not mean, however, that it can not accomplish the job, and you know that that's exactly what I meant.

As for bounds... we can talk about the bounds and limitations of god too, if you wish.

[quote]
Because if this inanimate objct is capable of creating the masses, I can then easily become more signifigant than the object itself, I'm a human with an intellect, if that object can create the universe, imagine what I can do just by harnassing it's roots and in addition adding intellect to it's extension? I would be more powerful than the object that created the universe itself, it's that simple.
[/quote]

If you can harness the object (that exists/existed outside of the universe) then yes... you probably could. What's your point?

[quote]
Ah, but this sounds a bit fishy doesn't it?
[/quote]

No more fishy than god. And you see... something sounding "fishy" does not mean its untrue.

[quote]
I was saying in terms of explaining it in such a way as to say humans can figure out anything without the existence of a deity, that's what I've been getting at.
[/quote]

Answer my question. Do you not believe that this intellect was given to us by god? The intellect to figure out how the universe works and how it was created...?

[quote]
Alright then, that can be a very true statement, but the only equation atheists can use in such a defence is by explanation of terms scientifically, otherwise everything else is even a more mistakened flaw.
[/quote]

Untrue. They can just have beliefs un bound by science. They can just as easily believe the universe always existed and always will exist, or that our universe is just one cell thats part of a giant turtle. It does not need to be inligne with science, just as any theistic belief does not need to be, and to say its even an even more mistakened flaw is also wrong, unless of course you're to say that anything that does not follow science is a mistakened flaw... in which case your belief would be aswell.

[quote]
If an atheist neither acknowledges God, nor respects him, than to go on as such would be elevating to his status, because he is non-existant to an atheist
[/quote]

Not necessairly. The atheist could consider his status at the same elevation as that of a theist, except in the case of an atheist there is one less thing above his status.

[quote]
The same thing can be said about the morality and spiritual affairs that the religious are often atuned too, an atheist in their eyes is someone who abadones life to seek after his own ego, which is in a way, quite possibly a living death.
[/quote]

Wait... are you trying to equate morality with religion? I wouldnt go there, that is far too easy for me to argue.

[quote]
Exactly, God (we are speaking about the Judeo-Christian God here) is a SUPERNATURAL BEING. He stands outside of all understanding and is Creator of everything else.
[/quote]

He is a "supernatural" being because his abilities have not yet been explained through natural means. It is just as valid to attribute those abilities to an inanimate object.

[quote]
On the other hand, if your argument is that there is no God, then all you have, all you can use in your argument is the universe and everything (matter/energy/information) contained within the universe.
[/quote]

Untrue. Why do I have to limit myself to the universe? What about "outside" of the universe?

[quote]Therefore, the "primordial seed" (the infinitesimal particle of energy which somehow exploded and produced everything in the universe) must obey the basic natural laws of matter/energy:
[/quote]

Well, we can debate the nature of the particle, that is not important. It must obey the basic natural laws of matter/energy... alright, lets talk about that one. It must flow through time, correct? Well, before creating the universe, there would be no time for it to flow through.


[quote]It's a zero sum game, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted from one to the other, but that's it.
[/quote]

Assuming this is applicable outside of our known universe (because it may very well be that the laws of physics are proper to our universe alone).

[quote]Which leaves you with the conundrum: Where did that initial bit of energy/matter come from and how did that infinitesimal particle produce everything in the universe?
[/quote]

The argument in this thread isnt about how it produced everything,
its what (if anything) it came from. What you're doing is applying inapplicable laws to it though. The laws of physics, as part of this universe, do not necessairly apply to it, being that it is outside of the universe. Even WITHIN our universe, the laws of physics arent as constant as you may think. Whats applicable to the macro world is more or less constant, but not applicable in quantum physics, for example.

You concede that god exists outside of the universe... so that means that you concede that there is a way to exist outside of the universe. What prevents an object similar to god, but lacking intelligence and sentience, from existing there too?

[quote]

And if you say it leaked from another universe, or was the remnant of a previous universe all you do is move the question one step backward: Where did that universe come from? and the one before that? and the one before that?
[/quote]

No, I was indeed talking about the first first. I'll take this opportunity to mention something else some people believe, that this universe is the product of a previous universe, which is the product of a previous universe, and so on without end/beginning, in which time would take the form of a cycle.

[quote]
Yes, that's right. A belief in God, in effect is an admission that you are NOT the master of your soul ruler of all you see, but a pile of dust with breath at the mercy of his Creator.
[/quote]

As a theist, you believe you are special, you believe you are the creation, the chosen people, and this can be a very dangerous way of thinking.

[quote]An atheist, by his nature is saying that he is the only credible arbiter of his morality. He may allow another person to lead him, but it is still his choice, no one else can "make" him.
[/quote]

Careful about bringing morality into the equation, are you sure (with the history of religious beliefs) you want to discuss that?

[quote]
The theist does believe that this intellect has been given to use by God. The atheist does not, he basically believes that the intellect is there for no reason, just a freak of nature, and therefore, the atheist can use his intellect to theorize about the universe, but only because he wants to not because he was meant to.
[/quote]

But it doesnt matter whether he wants to use his intellect, or because he believes he was meant to. The question is does he, and according to the theists, he's supposed... so whats the problem here? I also find it more admirable to chose to use your intellect rather than being coaxed into using it because you believe someone else wants you to.

[quote]The people who dismissed the idea of a round earth were not all religious. Apparently, it was the accepted belief of that time for everyone.[/quote]

Who advocated it most? Who forced it? What about the age of the Earth? Despite the enormouse evidence to the contrary, I still see some religious people here claiming that the Earth is 6000 years old.

[quote]
Additionally, let's not forget that the age of the Earth has not been proven.
[/quote]

It has been verified by numerous scientific processes to be over 6000 years old. It is beyond a reasonable doubt to be older than 6000 years.

First let me start by saying this is a great discussion. I really hope to continue it without being insulting or disrespectful. If I have been either so far, I apologize.

Stellar, I think it's interesting that you insist that the fact you are an atheist does not mean you can be stereotyped with other athiests or even scientists, but you quickly try to saddle us "theists" with the historical failures and the setereotypical beliefs of "organized religion." I am as much an individual as you. I happen to accept that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus died for my sins and rose again. I do not lay claim to all of the historical baggage of "organized religion" I am very conscious of the fact that organized religion, by the mere fact that it is organized by men is going to be flawed.

As to the age of the Earth, I do not assert that it is approximately 6,000 years old. I also have not seen any data that clearly asserts it is millions of years old. In fact, I have seen scientific treatises with great evidence indicating the Earth, cannot be more than several hundred thousand years old, not millions or billions as others argue.

I have to continue to insist that if, by the very fact that you are an atheist, you are discounting the existence of an intelligent Creator, you can't then turn around and replace Him with a Creator that is not intelligent. Which is basically what you are attempting to do by introducing this inanimate object which created the universe. That basically turns you into an animist not an atheist.

That is only because you group yourselves together with the idea of morality.



But others do, which completely disregards all the evidence gathered that says otherwise.



Interesting. Can you source that?



Why not? The only two possibilities are that theres an intelligent creator, or there is not. If I dismiss that theres an intelligent creator, then I side with the belief that there isnt an intelligent creator, meaning something else, something unintelligent, unalive, is "the creator".



Why would it?

Where is your hard evidence of this statement...a source even...if you can...thanks LOL

By your own admission, atheism is just a different belief system. A belief system that says there is no God or gods, no supernatural powers. Therefore, this beilef would discount a belief in a creating "force" also. However, the belief in the supernatural power of inanimate objects is animism. So, if you believe that some "thing" is responsible for creating the universe you seem to be espousing animism. So which is it, there are no supernatural forces or there are, they are just not intelligent?

Looking for it. Of course, now that I need it I don't remember whether I bookmarked it.

Well, I guess that depends on how you define the creating object/force. If we take gravity as an example, (bad example, but an example nonetheless), and I believed gravity was the creating force, it wouldnt contradict any atheistic belief...



I didnt say I believe in the supernatural power of inanimate objects...



Not at all.



Well, personally, I believe that anything people percieve as supernatural forces are just regular forces yet to be explained...

when you find it...make sure its real HARDCORE evidence..and post it...besides there should be a link on Google too....you name it Google has it

As for me I believe the earth is billions of years old...

Yeah, I already tried google and yahoo and I can't find it. It seems there is some sort of conspiracy which is making sure only documentation suporting an age of approximately 4.5 billion years is appearing on the search engines. I KNOW THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE!!! I WILL NOT REST UNTIL I FIND IT (actually, I already stopped looking, the age of the Earth is not that important to me.) I don't really think it impacts the overall discussion.

Sorry Beckys_Mom, if I do come across it, I will email you the link.

Dude, as long as your belefs suit you... and like you said... it really doesn't matter how old the earth is... LOL

Well at least you showed respect..when you read I believe it to be billions of years old.(even though you dont believe in it yourself you still showed respect) .thank you..so for that..YES please do email it to me...any christian that shows me respect for my beliefs will get the same respect from me.... You took the time to look it up...I take my hat of to you...


Dont forget the email