The God Thread

[smithers joe]

18 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

Just give me some discernible evidence of a diety. 
 

Any one will do. There are so many to choose from. 
 

Pick one. It’s what most do. 

how about you give evidence that there isn't one. not theories or speculations? science can't.

[Sharpshooter]

14 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

how about you give evidence that there isn't one. not theories or speculations? science can't.

The onus isn’t on science to disprove something that has o evidence for its existence. 
 

The onus of evidence is on the one making the claim for the existence of a  or any deity. 

[112]

32 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

The onus isn’t on science to disprove something that has o evidence for its existence. 
 

The onus of evidence is on the one making the claim for the existence of a  or any deity. 

 

what was before the big bang, and what's your evidence that it just sort of happened?

 

i think you're making a claim when you insist on the atheist beginning of the universe as much as some people do that there's a creator.

 

 

[The Lock]

45 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

The onus isn’t on science to disprove something that has o evidence for its existence. 
 

The onus of evidence is on the one making the claim for the existence of a  or any deity. 

 

Personally, I'm agnostic because we can't really prove nor can we disprove the existence of a god.

 

Think of god as sort of a hypothesis. It's a theory; however, we don't really know how to prove or disprove it with anything completely solid. We could try and go around this through disproving claims that surround the idea of god; however, those doesn't directly disprove it either. This isn't just a "one and done" issue when there's so much we still don't even know scientifically.

 

Do I really believe there's a god. Not really, no. I'm agnostic for that slight chance that there is. It's kind of like saying "I'm athiest, but..." lol

[smithers joe]

52 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

The onus isn’t on science to disprove something that has o evidence for its existence. 
 

The onus of evidence is on the one making the claim for the existence of a  or any deity. 

i wish you a good life lad. i'm happy with mine. we won't change each others minds. i'll chose to have faith in god, you in yourself. cheers.

 

[Optimist Prime]

1 hour ago, smithers joe said:

how about you give evidence that there isn't one. not theories or speculations? science can't.

Not how it really works my dude: I have an invisible spaceship in my kitchen. Prove I don't. 

 

see? it isn't for those who don't share the delusion to prove you are delusional, it is for the religious to prove their god exists. The whole 'leap of faith' just doesn't cut it, not in the light of the constant thousands of years retreat of religion from areas that science is slowly explaining. 

[Optimist Prime]

4 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

i wish you a good life lad. i'm happy with mine. we won't change each others minds. i'll chose to have faith in god, you in yourself. cheers.

 

Does god know there are children suffering?

Does god know and not care?

Does god care but can't act?

Does god know and care and chooses not to act?

or does god not exist?

[Sharpshooter]

2 hours ago, 112 said:

 

what was before the big bang, and what's your evidence that it just sort of happened?

 

i think you're making a claim when you insist on the atheist beginning of the universe as much as some people do that there's a creator.

 

 

Quantum fluctuations 

[The Lock]

22 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Quantum fluctuations 

 

So I actually think the big bang theory will eventually be debunked.

 

I just don't think we know enough. We only live on a tiny tiny dot trying to figure all of this out and we can only see out so far. It's not exactly as easy as we'd like and there's more and more contradicting evidence out there.

 

For example, there are large galaxies we've see in the distance, too large to be formed at the big bang since galaxies typically need to gradually grow. Then there's the whole debate on dark matter which is another can of worms but the big bang theory depends on dark matter being true.

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Lock

[smithers joe]

2 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

Does god know there are children suffering?

Does god know and not care?

Does god care but can't act?

Does god know and care and chooses not to act?

or does god not exist?

god knows. god cares, god gave us free will , god could have created a utopia but that wouldn't only be boring but we wouldn't learn and grow.

we don't know if we pay for not loving others but there is a ton of things we don't understand. we're not telling you to believe in something  but we do ask that you respect those of us that believe in something you don't. i don't look down on anyone. i'll even look up to you if you prove me wrong. happy days.

[112]

1 hour ago, Sharpshooter said:

Quantum fluctuations 

 

and preceding that?

[smithers joe]

3 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

Not how it really works my dude: I have an invisible spaceship in my kitchen. Prove I don't. 

 

see? it isn't for those who don't share the delusion to prove you are delusional, it is for the religious to prove their god exists. The whole 'leap of faith' just doesn't cut it, not in the light of the constant thousands of years retreat of religion from areas that science is slowly explaining. 

hopefully you can use your spaceship to transport oppressed people to safety. that would show your love. have a safe trip

[bishopshodan]

Burden of proof.

 

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/chapter 3 religion/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=The burden of proof is always on the person making,questions the assertion being made.

 

'The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. '

[bishopshodan]

14 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

god gave us free will

 

I'm not sure we have free will.

 

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

9 minutes ago, 112 said:

 

and preceding that?

Cosmic jello 

[The Lock]

7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Burden of proof.

 

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/chapter 3 religion/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=The burden of proof is always on the person making,questions the assertion being made.

 

'The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. '

 

Tell that to the countless conspiracy theorists I've debated with over the years thinking they're being smart by trying to get me to "prove something didn't happen" without giving me proof it did. lol

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Lock

[Sharpshooter]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

 

So I actually think the big bang theory will eventually be debunked.

 

I just don't think we know enough. We only live on a tiny tiny dot trying to figure all of this out and we can only see out so far. It's not exactly as easy as we'd like and there's more and more contradicting evidence out there.

 

For example, there are large galaxies we've see in the distance, too large to be formed at the big bang since galaxies typically need to gradually grow. Then there's the whole debate on dark matter which is another can of worms but the big bang theory depends on dark matter being true.

It may be.

 

That’s the great thing about scientific knowledge. It’s theorized,  observed, measured/tested, verified by a peer review process. 

A basic understanding for kids learning the scientific process is:

 

 

Large or small galaxies are formed roughly the same way. Cluster, Spiral, Elliptical, etc, Galaxies require material, time, mass, gravitational attraction to coalesce and form. 
 

Dark Matter and Dark Energy is definitely something being worked on worldwide by a slew of scientists, mathematicians and researchers. It comprises most of the universe, aside from the ‘normal’ matter and energy. 
 

This is where science shines. Figuring stuff out before making claims and then having someone debunk it or verify it. 
 

Religion and claims of a deity don’t work that way, unfortunately. 

[Sharpshooter]

3 hours ago, smithers joe said:

i wish you a good life lad. i'm happy with mine. we won't change each others minds. i'll chose to have faith in god, you in yourself. cheers.

 

Thanks Joe. I appreciate that and extend it to you too, regardless of how we may differ in our thoughts, beliefs or non-belief. 
 

Cheers! 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Sharpshooter said:

It may be.

 

That’s the great thing about scientific knowledge. It’s theorized,  observed, measured/tested, verified by a peer review process. 

A basic understanding for kids learning the scientific process is:

 

 

Large or small galaxies are formed roughly the same way. Cluster, Spiral, Elliptical, etc, Galaxies require material, time, mass, gravitational attraction to coalesce and form. 
 

Dark Matter and Dark Energy is definitely something being worked on worldwide by a slew of scientists, mathematicians and researchers. It comprises most of the universe, aside from the ‘normal’ matter and energy. 
 

This is where science shines. Figuring stuff out before making claims and then having someone debunk it or verify it. 
 

Religion and claims of a deity don’t work that way, unfortunately. 

 

So my theory actually is similar to the big bang...

 

What would happen if we lost gravity on Earth? We'd all separate.

What would happen if we lost gravity from the Sun? The planets would all separate.

What would happen if we lost gravity in the center of the galaxy? The stars would all separate.

 

So what if there used to be a center of the universe, but not a big bang, but more a source of gravity that dissipated?

[Sharpshooter]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

So my theory actually is similar to the big bang...

 

What would happen if we lost gravity on Earth? We'd all separate.

What would happen if we lost gravity from the Sun? The planets would all separate.

What would happen if we lost gravity in the center of the galaxy? The stars would all separate.

 

So what if there used to be a center of the universe, but not a big bang, but more a source of gravity that dissipated?

The ‘Center’ of the Universe would need a Force on it, to form though, in the first place, in order to then dissipate and ‘expand’ outwards. 
 

Something had to have come together without Gravity as that Force. 
 

What would that be? 
 

Also in order for planets and galaxies to form first, gravity would be required. 

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

The ‘Center’ of the Universe would need a Force on it, to form though, in the first place, in order to then dissipate and ‘expand’ outwards. 
 

Something had to have come together without Gravity as that Force. 
 

What would that be? 

 

Well, planets are formed through the acquisition of smaller materials, as are suns formed from the debris of supernovas. Galaxies also grow bigger and have more gravity through the acquisition of more stars and galaxies.

 

It could be a similar thing when it comes to the universe. It just happens to be so big that it's a lot harder to see it.

 

Edit: Or, what if we made an impact with another universe? There's your force.

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Lock

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, The Lock said:

 

Well, planets are formed through the acquisition of smaller materials, as are suns formed from the debris of supernovas. Galaxies also grow bigger and have more gravity through the acquisition of more stars and galaxies.

 

It could be a similar thing when it comes to the universe. It just happens to be so big that it's a lot harder to see it.

Without gravity none of those things coalesce to be formed. 
 

Just trying to get you to see that perhaps your previous ‘theory’ doesn’t work without gravity. 
 

The only thing that’s theorized that isn’t under the influence of the Force of Gravity are quantum fluctuations, as they precede the creation of the Universal Force of Gravity, as the Universe didn’t exist at that ‘time’. Time didn’t even exist before the ‘Big Bang’. 

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Without gravity none of those things coalesce to be formed. 
 

Just trying to get you to see that perhaps your previous ‘theory’ doesn’t work without gravity. 
 

The only thing that’s theorized that isn’t under the influence of the Force of Gravity are quantum fluctuations, as they precede the creation of the Universal Force of Gravity, as the Universe didn’t exist at that ‘time’. Time didn’t even exist before the ‘Big Bang’. 

 

See, this is where I disagree. Here's actually an interesting article that shows other points against the big bang. You'll have to excuse the crappy looking website, but the information there does seem to show up other places so it's not just saying things for the sake of saying things.

 

https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/#:~:text=Despite the continuing popularity of,universe with no Big Bang.

 

Anyway, I need to get ready to go out tonight. If I'm back later, you'll get drunk me blabbering on probably. lol

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Lock

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, The Lock said:

 

See, this is where I disagree. Here's actually an interesting article that shows other points against the big bang. You'll have to excuse the crappy looking website, but the information there does seem to show up other places so it's not just saying things for the sake of saying things.

 

https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/#:~:text=Despite the continuing popularity of,universe with no Big Bang.

There’s plenty of hypotheses out there. 
 

I look forward to new ones that go through the rigour of the Scientific Process. 
 

That’s how ‘we’ grow as a species. 
 

Thanks. 

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

The onus isn’t on science to disprove something that has o evidence for its existence. 
 

The onus of evidence is on the one making the claim for the existence of a  or any deity. 

The problem with this argument which is being made by all the nonbelievers is that you have no evidence that the world simply came to being without a creator. 
 

So until you can prove that something “happened”, you also have zero evidence for God’s non existence.