I've seen enough of these thread's attacking God.

[AvenirLegacy]

Jazin Kay

AvenirLegacy

Guys just look at her fscking Avatar, then ask yourselves "Why should I take this broad seriously when she speaks of God(s), on an Online Forum in Extended Discussion?"

Never judge a person by an avatar.

Naturally, since they can change it at a drop of a hat.

[black_wing_angel]

Macodrone

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

ChiyuriYami

Macodrone

By the same logic as there is no way to "disprove" Jehovah, there is no way to "disprove" Luminos the stripper goddess who's pelvic gyrations are the source of all happiness in the universe. There's no way to disprove Zeus, Odin, Set, Ra, Horus, etc either unless you believe in a different god, then you have incontrovertible proof that Ra, Set, Shiva, Horus, etc don't exist because the God of Abraham is THE god and these other "Gods" are demons and Satan in disguise.

It's silly to me, because they already KNOW what it's like to deny the existence of a God. I'm just taking it a step further.

And, Point of reference. I don't know if you're familiar with Dragonlance or the Forgotten Realms novels but they depict the actions of Gods as well. Should I expect Drizzt Du'urden or Tanis Half-elven to be the next Jesus Christ?

Now as for rational thinking being "subjective" you are clearly misaligned with the meaning of the word rational.
Rational is 1+1 becoming 2 every single time. It is logical, it is rational, and it is correct.
I don't personally care about the fragile egos of believers, just because something fits into your life does not make it "real" or useful.
Using the argument that he's real to you because you believe in him is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling overtop of reality,.

Yep, you can't disproove those. Many religion will disagreee with other religion. For example how most religion disagree with the religion of "there is no godly being" many Atheist have.
Theist and many Atheist are the same.. they both choose to blindly believe in whatever they want. The only ones I respect are those who remain on the "we don't know line" and remain impartial. Technicly speaking that's the best choice to make. Sadly many people don't and if they deny all possible gods, most of the time they fall into the belief of Lack of godly beings.. which is just as wrong as believiving in a godly being -.-

Many people interpret the existance of other religion as just an historical part of the world. The moment you understand that humans can lie, you can pretty much choose to not take everything said in the past in a litteral sense. Of course, from other people's religion, it seem like we are denying them. But that's fine. Atheist who choose to beleive in lack of anything will deny the religino of other people. They simply do not deny their own religion. Many Theist do the same, they will deny the religion of other peopel as been "incorect" and only beleive in their own.

Anyway, in your first psot you wrote ""an Atheist chooses to not believe in something that requires a suspension of rational thinking or critical analysis.""
Let me tell you a very shortened version of my religion.:
The Maker came into this plane/made this plane of existance. It turned it's own energy into matter which resulted in a extremely large explosion. After setting up a System over the world, the Maker left.
Since you said that Rational is simply about logic, then can you explain in which way this condenced explaination of my religon is not logical when compared to today's reality, hence would require the suspension of rational thinking.
Since I am unsure of the meaning behind "critical analysis", I'll take it it's probably something about simply using logic. If it's not go ahead and explain what it really mean.

The logic breaks down when you say a "being" (vague and nonsensical) came into the universe (from where) to create it (with what)

If you open your imagination, sure. There's nothing illogical about what you've said, but if you stop imagining things like makers who just disappear after their done because ******** science that's why, you start to see how illogical it is to believe in that sort of thing. It's in violation of Newtonian physics first of all, and second of all, it's silly. Absolutely silly.

And the idea that "There was nothing, which exploded, and then there was everything" makes so much more sense, amirite?

All "origin of the universe" theories sound asinine and illogical.

Every.
Last.
One.

Anyone you've heard say that the universe came into existence from "nothing" either lied, didn't have time to be bothered explaining things you A) will instantly reject B) won't understand and also instantly reject or C) had better things to do with his time like continue to unlock the universes back door instead of taking valuable time away from their lives to explain something to you that you will immediately reject as sciency voodoo.

Considering the fact that science was one of my favorite classes in school, I'd like to point out that that's a mighty harsh assumption on your end.

What? Do you think that religious people can't be scientifically inclined? Now that's a joke...

Quote:

The idea of a quantum singularity being infinitely dense and infinitesimally small =/= nothingness.

A logical conclusion which can be extrapolated is that the force of gravity needed to maintain the universe will eventually be so strong that the universe itself will no longer be able to maintain equilibrium and collapse under its own girth (being empty after all the stars die out and nothing but the fabric of space is left) and repeat the cycle.
That is one theory which makes rational sense. Singularity goes critical, expands, expands, gravity is too strong because of the density, contract, contract, contract, repeat.

And where does this extreme gravity, strong enough to condense everything, come from? Entire stars turned into black holes, hold enough gravity to weigh down photons. If a gravitational field that strong can't condense the entire universe, what the hell possibly could?

Quote:

Wave theory, in part, is working on explaining an infinitely cyclical universe with not starting or ending point.

Now if you're wondering where all these elements came from if a universe would be empty at the time of implosion consider that the only elements which exist in the early universe are a few gasses created after the matter/anti-matter collisions in the new born universe.

Does this theory work? probably not, is it possible? certainly.

And this is the same line of reasoning that makes religion a valid theory. "Is it the truth? Couldn't say. Is it possible? Absolutely."

Quote:

Does it make more sense to postulate theories and try to prove them and start over when they don't work out with a new theory until we get the right answer as opposed to assuming a God did all this and that's all we need to know. Most definitely.

Except that someone choosing to believe in God, does not mean they're "assuming God did it, and that's all we need to know". That's a major assumption on your part.

[cry all you want]

Nah.

[Andy Worhal]

cry all you want

Nah.

By posting as if the issue doesn't matter....

You kind of hurt my feelings.

[cry all you want]

Christ the Holy Son

cry all you want

Nah.

By posting as if the issue doesn't matter....

You kind of hurt my feelings.

Theres always room in my heart for you, Christ.
(Well, not really...you know what I mean <3)

[Andy Worhal]

cry all you want

Christ the Holy Son

cry all you want

Nah.

By posting as if the issue doesn't matter....

You kind of hurt my feelings.

Theres always room in my heart for you, Christ.
(Well, not really...you know what I mean <3)

I love you too, fella. heart

[Macodrone]

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

ChiyuriYami

Yep, you can't disproove those. Many religion will disagreee with other religion. For example how most religion disagree with the religion of "there is no godly being" many Atheist have.
Theist and many Atheist are the same.. they both choose to blindly believe in whatever they want. The only ones I respect are those who remain on the "we don't know line" and remain impartial. Technicly speaking that's the best choice to make. Sadly many people don't and if they deny all possible gods, most of the time they fall into the belief of Lack of godly beings.. which is just as wrong as believiving in a godly being -.-

Many people interpret the existance of other religion as just an historical part of the world. The moment you understand that humans can lie, you can pretty much choose to not take everything said in the past in a litteral sense. Of course, from other people's religion, it seem like we are denying them. But that's fine. Atheist who choose to beleive in lack of anything will deny the religino of other people. They simply do not deny their own religion. Many Theist do the same, they will deny the religion of other peopel as been "incorect" and only beleive in their own.

Anyway, in your first psot you wrote ""an Atheist chooses to not believe in something that requires a suspension of rational thinking or critical analysis.""
Let me tell you a very shortened version of my religion.:
The Maker came into this plane/made this plane of existance. It turned it's own energy into matter which resulted in a extremely large explosion. After setting up a System over the world, the Maker left.
Since you said that Rational is simply about logic, then can you explain in which way this condenced explaination of my religon is not logical when compared to today's reality, hence would require the suspension of rational thinking.
Since I am unsure of the meaning behind "critical analysis", I'll take it it's probably something about simply using logic. If it's not go ahead and explain what it really mean.

The logic breaks down when you say a "being" (vague and nonsensical) came into the universe (from where) to create it (with what)

If you open your imagination, sure. There's nothing illogical about what you've said, but if you stop imagining things like makers who just disappear after their done because ******** science that's why, you start to see how illogical it is to believe in that sort of thing. It's in violation of Newtonian physics first of all, and second of all, it's silly. Absolutely silly.

And the idea that "There was nothing, which exploded, and then there was everything" makes so much more sense, amirite?

All "origin of the universe" theories sound asinine and illogical.

Every.
Last.
One.

Anyone you've heard say that the universe came into existence from "nothing" either lied, didn't have time to be bothered explaining things you A) will instantly reject B) won't understand and also instantly reject or C) had better things to do with his time like continue to unlock the universes back door instead of taking valuable time away from their lives to explain something to you that you will immediately reject as sciency voodoo.

Considering the fact that science was one of my favorite classes in school, I'd like to point out that that's a mighty harsh assumption on your end.

What? Do you think that religious people can't be scientifically inclined? Now that's a joke...

Quote:

The idea of a quantum singularity being infinitely dense and infinitesimally small =/= nothingness.

A logical conclusion which can be extrapolated is that the force of gravity needed to maintain the universe will eventually be so strong that the universe itself will no longer be able to maintain equilibrium and collapse under its own girth (being empty after all the stars die out and nothing but the fabric of space is left) and repeat the cycle.
That is one theory which makes rational sense. Singularity goes critical, expands, expands, gravity is too strong because of the density, contract, contract, contract, repeat.

And where does this extreme gravity, strong enough to condense everything, come from? Entire stars turned into black holes, hold enough gravity to weigh down photons. If a gravitational field that strong can't condense the entire universe, what the hell possibly could?

Quote:

Wave theory, in part, is working on explaining an infinitely cyclical universe with not starting or ending point.

Now if you're wondering where all these elements came from if a universe would be empty at the time of implosion consider that the only elements which exist in the early universe are a few gasses created after the matter/anti-matter collisions in the new born universe.

Does this theory work? probably not, is it possible? certainly.

And this is the same line of reasoning that makes religion a valid theory. "Is it the truth? Couldn't say. Is it possible? Absolutely."

Quote:

Does it make more sense to postulate theories and try to prove them and start over when they don't work out with a new theory until we get the right answer as opposed to assuming a God did all this and that's all we need to know. Most definitely.

Except that someone choosing to believe in God, does not mean they're "assuming God did it, and that's all we need to know". That's a major assumption on your part.

How does that gravity happen? 1 of 2 ways. After the universe blinks out and the last of the stars die, there will be a period of time where there's nothing but darkness and the only thing that exists is the fabric of space.
That doesn't mean the universe would suddenly stop expanding for whatever reason, and the force necessary for the universe to maintain it's shape will eventually be over matched mass of the universe and the strength of the push vs pull of gravity and matter where gravity wins.

OR.

Another theory is that the universe can only expand so far before it starts to tear (much like a black hole) and the intense gravity around these tears will cause space to slow down and start pulling back upon itself.


How does this theory differ from believing in a God just because it's "possible" that there "might" "maybe" "by chance" "perhaps" be a divine supernatural being? A) Nothing about these theories relies on superstitions or anything supernatural. They're possible because we know how the laws of the universe work, and we can predict what would happen IF such a thing did happen.
Is this how the universe formed? No, most likely not. Does it conform to the laws of physics as we know it? Yes. It does.

Is there a real answer to how the universe began and what happened during the big bang waiting for us to find it? Absolutely.

Will the answer include unscientific supernatural ideas like "God did it". Most certainly not.

[MisdreavusPrincess]

Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, people had many questions about the universe.

So people, all over the world, made up different stories with fictional characters to answer those questions.

Those stories, characters, and contents are known as mythology.

Only some people today refuse to believe what science has told us.
To them, it is not mythology.
It is religion.

The end.

[Candle Shadows]

Suicidesoldier#1

It's all about faith silly.

How about you prove God doesn't exist.


Also it isn't circular logic.

God exists because he exists isn't circular, it's a statement.


Blue is blue because it's blue.

That not circular, that's a straight line.


Why does the universe exist; it just does?

Explain to me how that's better.

Why the ******** did you just use that quote "Prove that he doesn't exist".
If he created the universe, then the flying spaghetti monster created God. The Flying spaghetti monster is invisible and can phase through any matter. Prove that he doesn't exist! That means he must exist!

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Candle Shadows

Suicidesoldier#1

It's all about faith silly.

How about you prove God doesn't exist.


Also it isn't circular logic.

God exists because he exists isn't circular, it's a statement.


Blue is blue because it's blue.

That not circular, that's a straight line.


Why does the universe exist; it just does?

Explain to me how that's better.

Why the ******** did you just use that quote "Prove that he doesn't exist".
If he created the universe, then the flying spaghetti monster created God. The Flying spaghetti monster is invisible and can phase through any matter. Prove that he doesn't exist! That means he must exist!

No he didn't.

[black_wing_angel]

Macodrone

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

The logic breaks down when you say a "being" (vague and nonsensical) came into the universe (from where) to create it (with what)

If you open your imagination, sure. There's nothing illogical about what you've said, but if you stop imagining things like makers who just disappear after their done because ******** science that's why, you start to see how illogical it is to believe in that sort of thing. It's in violation of Newtonian physics first of all, and second of all, it's silly. Absolutely silly.

And the idea that "There was nothing, which exploded, and then there was everything" makes so much more sense, amirite?

All "origin of the universe" theories sound asinine and illogical.

Every.
Last.
One.

Anyone you've heard say that the universe came into existence from "nothing" either lied, didn't have time to be bothered explaining things you A) will instantly reject B) won't understand and also instantly reject or C) had better things to do with his time like continue to unlock the universes back door instead of taking valuable time away from their lives to explain something to you that you will immediately reject as sciency voodoo.

Considering the fact that science was one of my favorite classes in school, I'd like to point out that that's a mighty harsh assumption on your end.

What? Do you think that religious people can't be scientifically inclined? Now that's a joke...

Quote:

The idea of a quantum singularity being infinitely dense and infinitesimally small =/= nothingness.

A logical conclusion which can be extrapolated is that the force of gravity needed to maintain the universe will eventually be so strong that the universe itself will no longer be able to maintain equilibrium and collapse under its own girth (being empty after all the stars die out and nothing but the fabric of space is left) and repeat the cycle.
That is one theory which makes rational sense. Singularity goes critical, expands, expands, gravity is too strong because of the density, contract, contract, contract, repeat.

And where does this extreme gravity, strong enough to condense everything, come from? Entire stars turned into black holes, hold enough gravity to weigh down photons. If a gravitational field that strong can't condense the entire universe, what the hell possibly could?

Quote:

Wave theory, in part, is working on explaining an infinitely cyclical universe with not starting or ending point.

Now if you're wondering where all these elements came from if a universe would be empty at the time of implosion consider that the only elements which exist in the early universe are a few gasses created after the matter/anti-matter collisions in the new born universe.

Does this theory work? probably not, is it possible? certainly.

And this is the same line of reasoning that makes religion a valid theory. "Is it the truth? Couldn't say. Is it possible? Absolutely."

Quote:

Does it make more sense to postulate theories and try to prove them and start over when they don't work out with a new theory until we get the right answer as opposed to assuming a God did all this and that's all we need to know. Most definitely.

Except that someone choosing to believe in God, does not mean they're "assuming God did it, and that's all we need to know". That's a major assumption on your part.

How does that gravity happen? 1 of 2 ways. After the universe blinks out and the last of the stars die, there will be a period of time where there's nothing but darkness and the only thing that exists is the fabric of space.
That doesn't mean the universe would suddenly stop expanding for whatever reason, and the force necessary for the universe to maintain it's shape will eventually be over matched mass of the universe and the strength of the push vs pull of gravity and matter where gravity wins.

OR.

Another theory is that the universe can only expand so far before it starts to tear (much like a black hole) and the intense gravity around these tears will cause space to slow down and start pulling back upon itself.


How does this theory differ from believing in a God just because it's "possible" that there "might" "maybe" "by chance" "perhaps" be a divine supernatural being? A) Nothing about these theories relies on superstitions or anything supernatural. They're possible because we know how the laws of the universe work, and we can predict what would happen IF such a thing did happen.
Is this how the universe formed? No, most likely not. Does it conform to the laws of physics as we know it? Yes. It does.

Um...the idea of the empty void that we call "outer space" could "tear"...does not in any way conform to the laws of physics. Also, it is my understanding that the universe itself does not expand nor contract. It's just....empty void. It's nothingness.

Quote:

Is there a real answer to how the universe began and what happened during the big bang waiting for us to find it? Absolutely.

Will the answer include unscientific supernatural ideas like "God did it". Most certainly not.

See, the problem is that you assume God himself is something anti-scientific. What if that's not the case?

I was never a big fan of Star Trek, but there was one character that rather intrigued me. They called him Q. He was a super evolved lifeform that could perform incredible feats that we today would never be able to scientifically explain. But there is definitely supposed scientific explanations for his abilities. They're just not understood by the humans and other races of the show's time period.

Also, if you're into Marvel Comics, there's Apocalypse. A 5,000 year old Egyptian peasant, born with advanced traits ( "mutation" ) that allowed him to develop insanely remarkable technological devices. But in the end, that's all they are. Technology. Not magic.

What if God's feats have never been anything more than technology that we humans can not yet fathom?

[Macodrone]

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

black_wing_angel

Macodrone

black_wing_angel

And the idea that "There was nothing, which exploded, and then there was everything" makes so much more sense, amirite?

All "origin of the universe" theories sound asinine and illogical.

Every.
Last.
One.

Anyone you've heard say that the universe came into existence from "nothing" either lied, didn't have time to be bothered explaining things you A) will instantly reject B) won't understand and also instantly reject or C) had better things to do with his time like continue to unlock the universes back door instead of taking valuable time away from their lives to explain something to you that you will immediately reject as sciency voodoo.

Considering the fact that science was one of my favorite classes in school, I'd like to point out that that's a mighty harsh assumption on your end.

What? Do you think that religious people can't be scientifically inclined? Now that's a joke...

Quote:

The idea of a quantum singularity being infinitely dense and infinitesimally small =/= nothingness.

A logical conclusion which can be extrapolated is that the force of gravity needed to maintain the universe will eventually be so strong that the universe itself will no longer be able to maintain equilibrium and collapse under its own girth (being empty after all the stars die out and nothing but the fabric of space is left) and repeat the cycle.
That is one theory which makes rational sense. Singularity goes critical, expands, expands, gravity is too strong because of the density, contract, contract, contract, repeat.

And where does this extreme gravity, strong enough to condense everything, come from? Entire stars turned into black holes, hold enough gravity to weigh down photons. If a gravitational field that strong can't condense the entire universe, what the hell possibly could?

Quote:

Wave theory, in part, is working on explaining an infinitely cyclical universe with not starting or ending point.

Now if you're wondering where all these elements came from if a universe would be empty at the time of implosion consider that the only elements which exist in the early universe are a few gasses created after the matter/anti-matter collisions in the new born universe.

Does this theory work? probably not, is it possible? certainly.

And this is the same line of reasoning that makes religion a valid theory. "Is it the truth? Couldn't say. Is it possible? Absolutely."

Quote:

Does it make more sense to postulate theories and try to prove them and start over when they don't work out with a new theory until we get the right answer as opposed to assuming a God did all this and that's all we need to know. Most definitely.

Except that someone choosing to believe in God, does not mean they're "assuming God did it, and that's all we need to know". That's a major assumption on your part.

How does that gravity happen? 1 of 2 ways. After the universe blinks out and the last of the stars die, there will be a period of time where there's nothing but darkness and the only thing that exists is the fabric of space.
That doesn't mean the universe would suddenly stop expanding for whatever reason, and the force necessary for the universe to maintain it's shape will eventually be over matched mass of the universe and the strength of the push vs pull of gravity and matter where gravity wins.

OR.

Another theory is that the universe can only expand so far before it starts to tear (much like a black hole) and the intense gravity around these tears will cause space to slow down and start pulling back upon itself.


How does this theory differ from believing in a God just because it's "possible" that there "might" "maybe" "by chance" "perhaps" be a divine supernatural being? A) Nothing about these theories relies on superstitions or anything supernatural. They're possible because we know how the laws of the universe work, and we can predict what would happen IF such a thing did happen.
Is this how the universe formed? No, most likely not. Does it conform to the laws of physics as we know it? Yes. It does.

Um...the idea of the empty void that we call "outer space" could "tear"...does not in any way conform to the laws of physics. Also, it is my understanding that the universe itself does not expand nor contract. It's just....empty void. It's nothingness.

Quote:

Is there a real answer to how the universe began and what happened during the big bang waiting for us to find it? Absolutely.

Will the answer include unscientific supernatural ideas like "God did it". Most certainly not.

See, the problem is that you assume God himself is something anti-scientific. What if that's not the case?

I was never a big fan of Star Trek, but there was one character that rather intrigued me. They called him Q. He was a super evolved lifeform that could perform incredible feats that we today would never be able to scientifically explain. But there is definitely supposed scientific explanations for his abilities. They're just not understood by the humans and other races of the show's time period.

Also, if you're into Marvel Comics, there's Apocalypse. A 5,000 year old Egyptian peasant, born with advanced traits ( "mutation" ) that allowed him to develop insanely remarkable technological devices. But in the end, that's all they are. Technology. Not magic.

What if God's feats have never been anything more than technology that we humans can not yet fathom?

Your understanding of the universe is wrong.
"Dark matter, whose composition is still a mystery, doesn't emit or absorb light, so astronomers can't see it directly with telescopes. They deduce that it exists based on how its gravity affects visible matter. Scientists estimate that dark matter makes up more than 80 percent of the universe. To "see" the dark matter component of the filament that connects the clusters Abell 222 and 223, Dietrich and his colleagues took advantage of a phenomenon called gravitational lensing.

The gravity of massive objects such as galaxy clusters acts as a lens to bend and distort the light from more distant objects as it passes. Dietrich's team observed tens of thousands of galaxies beyond the supercluster. They were able to determine the extent to which the supercluster distorted galaxies, and with that information, they could plot the gravitational field and the mass of the Abell 222 and 223 clusters. Seeing this for the first time was "exhilarating," Dietrich said."

You probably won't even click this link


I have all 7 seasons of Star Trek on one of my hard drives. I know the Q very well and I also know that the Q are fictional and I wouldn't even dream of using a fictional character to try and establish the credibility of another fictional character.

I don't give a lonely s**t what you "believe" about the universe. Your assumptions are based on falsehoods.
IF the universe (as you understand it) weren't subject to entropy or inertia then nothing would continue to work. Time as it were would freeze still and everything would *stop*

There's a theory on time / inner time which postulates that the periods of time which we experience (IE the moments blending in to the other moments into further moments etc) are separated by periods of time between the transitions. An effective way to look at this theory is to walk up a flight of stairs and picture each horizontal step a moment in time, and each vertical step a moment in inner time measured by the entropy between point A and B.

Without entropy and inertia and the 3 laws of motion YOU WOULDN'T EXIST. Yes, these things affect the universe in all it's grand proportions right down to the atomic level

[Doubtful Dreamer]

black_wing_angel

Um...the idea of the empty void that we call "outer space" could "tear"...does not in any way conform to the laws of physics. Also, it is my understanding that the universe itself does not expand nor contract. It's just....empty void. It's nothingness.

The idea of space-time "tearing" is absurd, but it is the universe itself which is expanding. It is incorrect to picture everything drifting off into a void after some event flung it all outwards as such an event is incapable of explaining the observations and would require unobserved inhomogeneities and anisotropies. What this means is that we should, by observation, be able to very easily tell where the edge of universe is because the density there must be radically different than the density not at the edge. We do not observe any such differences at the boundaries of the observable universe. So, why is everything moving away from everything else? They are drifting apart because space is carrying them away from each other. It explains the largely isotropic and homogeneous universe we see and eliminates problems of requiring some spatially identifiable center for everything. It also helps explain why some red shifts are associated with velocities in excess of the speed of light.

As for what the fate of the universe is which appears to have spawned the debate, it is going to expand forever. Dark energy is causing an acceleration in the expansion which is strongly counteracting gravity and the universe is observed to be flat anyways [it has a density such that it will expand forever even without dark energy]. Penrose, I think it was, has this idea of cosmological conformal remapping, where after a certain period of expansion, the universe essentially restarts, but the idea is not very popular nor is it well supported despite Penrose's claims otherwise [he claims to have found patterns in the WMAP data, but no one else agrees with his analysis and believe he did some rather heavy cherry picking to get it to agree with his theory].

For what is probably the more pertinent question, where did the universe come from, we don't know. All modern theory simply tells us what happens once it is there for things to happen too. There have been various scientifically minded ideas which would give rise to a universe which looks like ours, but they are rather unspecific and very, very far from being precise or scientifically well founded. This does not mean that they are bad ideas, just that this line of inquiry is rather young and currently underdeveloped [cosmology has only held that the universe has a finite age for around of 60-70 years and the lack of ideas as to how to get observational evidence is a rather large roadblock to advancement].

[Andy Worhal]

MisdreavusPrincess

Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, people had many questions about the universe.

So people, all over the world, made up different stories with fictional characters to answer those questions.

Those stories, characters, and contents are known as mythology.

Only some people today refuse to believe what science has told us.
To them, it is not mythology.
It is religion.

The end.

crying

I'm real.

[Ranallo Jenner]

Macodrone

I'm an Atheist myself.
I'm inviting any young earth creationist, or any theist in general to tell me why their God is real AND how he created us.

I will not accept:
A: Circular reasoning
B: Newton's first law of thermodynamics
C: Arguments from Fallacy.

Using logical thinking, and expressing your case logically. Explain, without using the word faith, or references to the bible, or how God proves himself because X made Y because Z was made by Y who wouldn't exist without X so X has to be true.

If God is real, you should be more than capable of explaining how without making superstitious references.

Faith doesn't really require logic. That's the beauty about faith. It's something personal that can be shared with people who are interested. But the best evidence for the possibility of God's existence is the absence of evidence regarding the existence of God. That alongside not knowing what was there before the Big Bang. A person can't prove that God exists, and a person can't definitively prove that God does not exist.

It's left up to faith and personal belief.