Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence

[The King]

You are confusing relligion with relationship with the Creator.

Is believing that man has the origin of the universe all figured out by proposing the existence of a "singularity" which can not be seen, quantified, or even described beyond weasel words like "transient" or "infinitely dense" perhaps ignorance? It must comfort some to think that mankind is so capable.

[jdgregory84]

Note that I posted Christian or Jewish "believer" feels the need to identify the origins of God. They (we) know that He has always been and always will be.

There is also absolutely no reason not to look outside of organized religion in order to learn about God and His presence.

Which tells us that ignorance is bliss when it comes to religion.

[The King]

I disagree that no Christian or Jew feels the need to identify the origin of god.. in fact i believe that pursuit is what drives many of us away from organized religion.

If our life/existence is evidence of the necessity of a god, wouldn't his presence dictate the same? wouldn't you like to know if there is another "god" that is of higher power.. and if so why would you want to worship the middle-management one?

Note that I posted Christian or Jewish "believer" feels the need to identify the origins of God. They (we) know that He has always been and always will be.

There is also absolutely no reason not to look outside of organized religion in order to learn about God and His presence.

[lowthreeohz]

No (Christian or Jewish) believer feels the need to know the origin of God, as it is more than enough for us to know He is always there for us. Nothing wrong with scientific pursuits, but they will forever be subject to the limitations of mankind. Not so with God.

I disagree that no Christian or Jew feels the need to identify the origin of god.. in fact i believe that pursuit is what drives many of us away from organized religion.

If our life/existence is evidence of the necessity of a god, wouldn't his presence dictate the same? wouldn't you like to know if there is another "god" that is of higher power.. and if so why would you want to worship the middle-management one?

[The King]

It's like explaining the origin of god. No believer knows the origin of god just as no believer knows the origin of the big bang or the singularity which it came from. Science, tries to prove what happened since to better understand the beginning when religion, regardless of what religion just says that it is and that's how it is without providing an explanation.

No (Christian or Jewish) believer feels the need to know the origin of God, as it is more than enough for us to know He is always there for us. Nothing wrong with scientific pursuits, but they will forever be subject to the limitations of mankind. Not so with God.

[jdgregory84]

So,how would those who believe that a singularity existed explain its origin

It's like explaining the origin of god. No believer knows the origin of god just as no believer knows the origin of the big bang or the singularity which it came from. Science, tries to prove what happened since to better understand the beginning when religion, regardless of what religion just says that it is and that's how it is without providing an explanation.

[Maddhattter]

"Experts" is a subjective term, which is often given by those who accept what they are told is true without themselves having any personal experience in the matter.

I'll agree that who is an expert on what is subjective, which is why I qualified my usage of the word as those "who use independently verifiable evidence". That way you would be able to understand how I was using the word.

I'll also agree that a certain level of trust must be had in the people doing the research in some of the more complex and less understood sciences. This is why science has a peer review process. That way others, in any scientific discipline, can test hypotheses and verify results. However, the process as it stands has proven itself to be self-correcting and has produced all the technology that we rely on every day. So, scientists have, in my opinion, more than earned that trust.

The rest of your statement is an unsupported assertion in regard to the usage of the word expert.

Regardless, your response seems to be nothing more than a red herring. If I replaced every instance of “experts” with “scientists who use independently verifiable evidence” my post would still stand on its own and still be just as accurate.

[The King]

"Experts" is a subjective term, which is often given by those who accept what they are told is true without themselves having any personal experience in the matter.

[Maddhattter]

So,how would those who believe that a singularity existed explain its origin

It's an unknown factor. Considering the current big bang model has time starting with the big bang, the concept of before (considering that for it to come into existence would require a point in which it which it did not exist) may not even be a valid concept as there might be none. If there is no before, this still does not invoke magic, nor preclude it being a natural process. Hawking’s hypothesis that M-theory allows for a multiverse could keep the event as a natural phenomenon and still have its beginning the start of our reality, should it prove to be accurate. However, scientists are still investigating several hypotheses regarding that very question. No mention of magic has been made except by "intelligent design scientists" who want to throw their god of the gaps into every gap in our scientific knowlege. So, the best explanation would be “I don’t know, but scientists have some ideas that their looking into.”

Regardless, the big bang model is currently accepted as the model that best represents the evidence we have. The experts who use independently verifiable evidence agree that this is the best model that they have available to them. Could they be wrong? Of course, but when the facts don’t match the theory, they retool it to match the evidence.. As of yet, there is no legitimate reason to assume that they are wrong.

Dismissing the experiments and results of the experts in lieu of an estimated 2000 year old collection of books is akin to telling the aerospace engineers to go home and let the neanderthal take care of the space shuttle repairs.

[The King]

So,how would those who believe that a singularity existed explain its origin

[Maddhattter]

Sounds like those who believe that a "singularity" magically appeared from nothing out of nowhere and initiated a "Big Bang" to me.

Sounds fair. Anyone who believes that stuff happened magically would be ignorant. Fortunately, I've never met an atheist who believes that anything happened magically. I have no doubt that they exist (I've already conceded that there are atheistic religions), but there's no indication that they are anywhere near a majority.

This puts atheism in another stark contrast with theism. As, any deity enforcing it's will upon reality through it's will alone would be doing things magically, by definition. So, it is theists, by overwhelming majority, who believe everything started by magic.

[The King]

So, your deity demands that you follow in ignorance?

We have a word for people who believe in something with no evidence. It's gullible

Sounds like those who believe that a "singularity" magically appeared from nothing out of nowhere and initiated a "Big Bang" to me.

[Maddhattter]

So now even the Atheists are against homosexual marriage!


Please don't take this seriously. It is merely a smartass remark.

Being fair, I'm against all marriage. No body should even be allowed to suffer like that.

When that happens it will be too late according to our views.

So, your deity demands that you follow in ignorance?

We have a word for people who believe in something with no evidence. It's gullible. That is, of course, assuming that schizophrenia is not the problem.

Not at all what I meant.

In otherwords I hope and pray that atheist change their beliefs before that time. Am i pressing you or anyone to do this? No, but I as a believer hope and pray that others will follow.

Then you shouldn't have stated anything about wanting people to "be on the right side". You should have just said what you meant and stated that you hope people are on your side regardless as to whether it's right or wrong. Otherwise, my previous statement would have been correct.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Death in service to the Emperor is its own reward. Life in failure to Him is its own condemnation.
- Epistles (Verse 93) of the Imperial Creed.

Nice thing is, both are equally likely to be true.

[4.6coupe]

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

[mustangguy289]

Incorrect. It cannot be proven, in any traditional sense, that something does not exist. Only that the likelihood of something existing is too small to consider it a viable option.

Should it be proven that a god/gods exists, I will be more than willing to admit that it does/they do. It would not necessarily follow that I would be willing to worship said entity/entities.

When that happens it will be too late according to our views.

So, if you are wrong, you hope and pray that a god/gods do not exist? That would make the whole praying thing kinda pointless, even from your implied position.

.

Not at all what I meant.

In otherwords I hope and pray that atheist change their beliefs before that time. Am i pressing you or anyone to do this? No, but I as a believer hope and pray that others will follow.