Religion

Your argument falls down, because who created God? And if you are to say no one because he is infinite, then he has come from nothing.

The whole subject is fascinating, and I in no way claim to be able to even begin to understand the complex science and mathematics behind the scientific theories of the origins of the Universe. All I know it happened, likely from NOTHING and possibly as a 'big bang' but certainly not in the way it was described in the bible (or any other religious text for that matter).
 
The whole subject is fascinating, and I in no way claim to be able to even begin to understand the complex science and mathematics behind the scientific theories of the origins of the Universe. All I know it happened, likely from NOTHING and possibly as a 'big bang' but certainly not in the way it was described in the bible (or any other religious text for that matter).
It is indeed mind boggling. But because we can't get our heads round it, it's spawned all this folklore, myths and stories, and that's all they are just stories. One theory I've heard is a never ending cycle of big bang then big crunch, over and over. When you throw multi-verses into the equation, we'll that is a total mind fuck!
 
Who made everything, when and how is not really relevant when you consider how we have cocked it up for the last 200 years ;-)
 
I honestly think that anyone who believes in any kind of deity has mental health issues.
The problem can be an absolute belief or faith if you like in something ultimately unknowable or outside the believers level of knowledge and understanding. You may have just demonstrated this yourself.

Mental health is less about what you believe than how you respond to those beliefs and live your life generally. I think the evidence suggests that living a “good” life , whether guided by religion or family, society, etc is better for your mental health than being consumed by bitterness, anger and hatred.

There’s a few anti religious types who seem a bit unhealthily obsessed with proving their point.
 
You deserve mocking. You and YOUR TYPE have held back the world for far too long with your bullshit fairytale.
Labelling is not an argument.

Raymond Damadian a scripture believer ,who invented the Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI scanner using logic which underlies uniformity in nature. He noticed that every cell in the body has a charge and then went to work trying to build a nuclear resonating machine to convert ions into images. He certainly wasn't holding the world back as virtually every hospital in the world has an MRI scanner. He is one of the believers in a real Genesis ( your so called bullsh1t fairytale) as he saw it is impossible for particles to change into people through random chance processes. But rather he sees the mind boggling complexity of the human body and used that to increase knowledge.
He never got the Nobel prize for the invention most likely because of his creation views.


 
The problem can be an absolute belief or faith if you like in something ultimately unknowable or outside the believers level of knowledge and understanding. You may have just demonstrated this yourself.

Mental health is less about what you believe than how you respond to those beliefs and live your life generally. I think the evidence suggests that living a “good” life , whether guided by religion or family, society, etc is better for your mental health than being consumed by bitterness, anger and hatred.

There’s a few anti religious types who seem a bit unhealthily obsessed with proving their point.
You’ve hit the nail on the head for me. I try to live my life without anybody else down. I find religions interesting along with science and the theory of evolution. Most interesting of all is the as yet undiscovered explanations to our existence. Being religious or atheist is a false binary choice which ignores possibilities we haven’t yet considered or investigated.

The thing that makes me laugh and terrifies me in equal measure are those that are so fucking certain they are correct. But if it helps people ge5 through the day who am I to judge. I guess others wouldn’t be comfortable being in their fifties and still sitting on the fence.
 
What you've stated was subjective viewpoint with subjectve laws progressed by convention (subjectivity) in to the story. You mention knowledge which is another word for science ( scientia) . The basis for knowledge are laws of logic
To reach objectivity ( independent of whatever anyone thinks- reality) there are laws of logic which are the basis of uniformity in nature, objective morality , intelligibility , reason, understanding , language , mathematics, coherency.
These laws do not arise spontaneously in matter and are eternal without beginning , are uncreated yet they don't stand in causal relations. They don't cause anything since they are not physical. You can't stub your toe on the laws of logic. They are abstract. The laws are : law of non contradiction;law of excluded middle; law of identity. Law of non contradiction is an example such as " my car is in the car park and it is the case that my car is not in the car park".
We also trust that the universe is uniform throughout. The laws of logic will be the same on the moon as on earth. You can break them ie in contradictions but that would result in incoherence so the said car is either in the car park or it is not. The statement cannot be both true and false in the same sense.
These laws cannot be fabricated. They don't change. They are necessary for thought . They don't originate in anything or anyone because they are uncreated. They are there before us every time we think, make a sentence, read a book .. they are the basis of thought and language. They are the basis for objectively correct thinking .
These laws govern reality and thought and are assumed by Judeo Christian Scripture . Some claim they are arbitrary Western constructions but this is false . . They are true for 2 reasons
1. They are intuitively obvious and self evident , once one understands a basic law of logic one can see it's true.
2. Those who deny them use the same principles of logic in their denial, showing that those laws are unavoidable and it is self-refuting to deny them..
They are not arbitrary inventions of God or laws that exist outside of God's being. They are not like laws of nature. God may violate gravity ,say,but He cannot violate the laws of logic . That's because they are rooted in God's own nature. " in the beginning was the Word( logos) is accurately translated as " In the beginning was Logic" Jn 1:1 ( a divine rational mind ) . That is revelation, God's self communication.
So the creator has made His views available in the laws of Logic namely via the the Logos who is the Ultimate Ground of reality .
You presume there's a "creator". There is no evidence of one....and even if there was, it's certainly NOT the Judea Christian one.
 
Just because there are laws of logic does not entail that those laws have been put in place by the God of Christianity, especially not the capricious, vengeful Yahweh of the Pentateuch.

They could be the product of a team of gods working together (who also maybe combined to do that creation ex nihilo thing).

Furthermore, it is not inevitable that there has to be an ultimate cause of the universe, a causeless cause as it were. If there have been an endless series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, then reality may not have a beginning.

Lastly, most Christians believe that God is love, while the Qur’an repeatedly asserts that Allah is compassionate and merciful in all but one Surah. This hardly chimes with all the gratuitous, pointless evil that presently exists in the world that this deity happily permits, not all of which can be attributed to the misuse of free-will. Think of the millions of years of animal suffering that went on before we even arrived on the scene, for example. Or the suffering of innocent children afflicted with devastating illnesses.
 
Last edited:
It's 'ayyaam' / eons - meaning a period of time.
So it took six "periods of time" to create the universe? How specific. Why not just say one period of time and make that period of time longer?

these-go-to11-spinal-tap.gif


Or is it because they quite clearly were referring to days because that's the measurements used by the people who made all of this up? See this is what happens in religion all the time. Something that is until now uncontroversial is proven to be false, and then suddenly people come out of the woodwork to tell us "what they really meant" when they wrote it. Even "days" are only meant in a figurative sense now.

This is of course ignoring the fact that time as we know it is a product of the universe in the same way that a day is a concept that relies on the existence of earth.
 
Last edited:
The problem can be an absolute belief or faith if you like in something ultimately unknowable or outside the believers level of knowledge and understanding. You may have just demonstrated this yourself.

Mental health is less about what you believe than how you respond to those beliefs and live your life generally. I think the evidence suggests that living a “good” life , whether guided by religion or family, society, etc is better for your mental health than being consumed by bitterness, anger and hatred.

There’s a few anti religious types who seem a bit unhealthily obsessed with proving their point.
A few anti religious types, but there are thousands of religious types that are hell bent on ramming there religion down our f##cking throats.
 
Labelling is not an argument.

Raymond Damadian a scripture believer ,who invented the Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI scanner using logic which underlies uniformity in nature. He noticed that every cell in the body has a charge and then went to work trying to build a nuclear resonating machine to convert ions into images. He certainly wasn't holding the world back as virtually every hospital in the world has an MRI scanner. He is one of the believers in a real Genesis ( your so called bullsh1t fairytale) as he saw it is impossible for particles to change into people through random chance processes. But rather he sees the mind boggling complexity of the human body and used that to increase knowledge.
He never got the Nobel prize for the invention most likely because of his creation views.


Bollox, he didn't invent the 'imaging' part of it.

And he never thought his views were against the awarding of the Nobel prize which was for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

' Damadian himself said, "Before this happened, nobody ever said to me 'They will not give you the Nobel Prize for Medicine because you are a creation scientist'. If people were actively campaigning against me because of that, I never knew it'

Edit: Interestingly he became a Christian because he was taken to a Billy Graham evangelical event at the behest of his future wife. No doubt swept up in the crowd moment along with thousands of others he heeded the 'altar call' and became a Christian.

Interestingly I became a City fan because I was taken to a City match at the behest of my family. No doubt swept up in the crowd moment along with thousands of others I heeded the 'colour call of blue' and became a City supporter.

... it's amazing what a crowd of people can persuade you to do, no? Just because one is a football team and one a religion is no different, the 'moment' is what sucks you in, and then you're trapped for 'eternity' in believing in something which, taking any outsiders view, is completely stupid and unwarranted.

I think I'd rather believe in the fairytale of City, than the fairytale of religion.
 
Last edited:
So it took six "periods of time" to create the universe? How specific. Why not just say one period of time and make that period of time longer?

these-go-to11-spinal-tap.gif


Or is it because they quite clearly were referring to days because that's the measurements used by the people who made all of this up? See this is what happens in religion all the time. Something that is until now uncontroversial is proven to be false, and then suddenly people come out of the woodwork to tell us "what they really meant" when they wrote it. Even "days" are only meant in a figurative sense now.

This is of course ignoring the fact that time as we know it is a product of the universe in the same way that a day is a concept that relies on the existence of earth.
Yep, considering he's an all knowing God, he wasn't half vague and managed to get somethings total wrong about how the earth and universe work.
 
Yep, considering he's an all knowing God, he wasn't half vague and managed to get somethings total wrong about how the earth and universe work.
As always, the problem isn't with God, it's with all of the people who claim to know what he did, said or thinks. There's no reason to suppose that a creator would be beyond making a bit of an arse of aspects of his creation, for example. It's the religious that insist that he's got to be perfect, and in the process talk themselves into a corner.
 
A few anti religious types, but there are thousands of religious types that are hell bent on ramming there religion down our f##cking throats.
Yeah it works both ways and I was brought up a Catholic and went to a Catholic school but can honestly say in the last 40 years apart from the odd knock on the door from Jehovah’s Witnesses I’ve had no trouble avoiding having religion rammed down my throat. Most of the religious types I’ve known have been humble in their beliefs and we’ve maintained a mutual respect by recognising each other as humans first.

Im no lover of fundamentalists of any type or even the strongly opinionated who don’t need an invitation to share their views. Get into an argument with a religious or atheist nutter and there is usually no getting out of it with either determined to beat you into submission
 
Your argument falls down, because who created God? And if you are to say no one because he is infinite, then he has come from nothing.
And who created that god? .. and so on and so forth ....it still posits an infinite regress into the past which is impossible because it would have no beginning. How do you count down the negative numbers of infinite past moments to get to the present moment? Once one sees that, a huge realisation can occur.
So 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 the universe began to exist
Therefore 3 - the universe has a cause ( outside of itself - it cannot be the cause of itself)
Also known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument originally developed by Al Ghazali , Muslim scholar.
Shades of it in Aristotle and Aquinas . Current proponent W L Craig used in debates.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top