Evidence for God from Science

I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Atheists writing books? Meh, I see no books, hear of no books, there are no such books. Writing books is just what religious people do to promote their fanciful beliefs.

IceMobster wrote:I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

My guess would be that it starts with nothing.

Ken

I'm happy to see you put something on the table Kenny, as in previous exchanges with myself you've always refrained from answering. Although, I think a start from nothing, true nothingness, is absurd when faced with the something that now is.

Kurieuo wrote:Although, I think a start from nothing, true nothingness, is absurd when faced with the something that now is.

Why? I don't see it as absurd. It may very well be possible. If we are to went into theology, it shows how omnipotent God is: to create all of this order from exactly n o t h i n g.

Kenny wrote:My guess would be that it starts with nothing.
Ken

Hmmm, what? The picture does state it starts with nothing.

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Although, I think a start from nothing, true nothingness, is absurd when faced with the something that now is.

Why? I don't see it as absurd. It may very well be possible. If we are to went into theology, it shows how omnipotent God is: to create all of this order from exactly n o t h i n g.

Kenny wrote:My guess would be that it starts with nothing.
Ken

Hmmm, what? The picture does state it starts with nothing.

IceMobster,

You asked what was wrong with the picture. Kenny responded that his guess of what is wrong, is that it starts with nothing. I believe Kenny sees that is absurd for something(the universe), to come from nothing.

It's just getting Kenny to see that while it's possible that nothing existed prior to the universe, that God isn't some thing.

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Although, I think a start from nothing, true nothingness, is absurd when faced with the something that now is.

Why? I don't see it as absurd. It may very well be possible. If we are to went into theology, it shows how omnipotent God is: to create all of this order from exactly n o t h i n g.

Not quite, you always have a Foundational Something i.e., God.

Absolute nothingness on the other hand, it is absurd to even posit given that there is something.

RickD wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Although, I think a start from nothing, true nothingness, is absurd when faced with the something that now is.

Why? I don't see it as absurd. It may very well be possible. If we are to went into theology, it shows how omnipotent God is: to create all of this order from exactly n o t h i n g.

Kenny wrote:My guess would be that it starts with nothing.
Ken

Hmmm, what? The picture does state it starts with nothing.

IceMobster,

You asked what was wrong with the picture. Kenny responded that his guess of what is wrong, is that it starts with nothing. I believe Kenny sees that is absurd for something(the universe), to come from nothing.

It's just getting Kenny to see that while it's possible that nothing existed prior to the universe, that God isn't some thing.

Oh, I see that I misunderstood Kenny. He's saying the same thing I am really, I think (unsure if he really sees something wrong with it, or whether he's just taking a stab at Ice's question).

The Atheistic view of the universe is that it started from a singularity, not from nothing.
No one knows Why the singularity started to expand or where the singularity came from.

Ice, if you don't mind answering a question, I'm intrigued to know why you wouldn't see something coming from nothing as absurd? I just considered it to be self-obvious really, so was a little surprised by your push-back.

This premise forms part of my argument for reasoning something must have always existed, it's just a matter of identifying who or what. This we can call "God" if a personal being, or "god" (if we believe such to be impersonal).

My kids understand such reasoning, whereas I think they might struggle to understand looking backwards where we only witness anything that exists being caused to exist (hence my son asked where did God come from?). The buck has to stop somewhere though with some immovable foundation that's always existed.

PaulSacramento wrote:The Atheistic view of the universe is that it started ....

Oh?

IceMobster wrote:I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Are you under the impression this is what all Atheists believe?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

IceMobster wrote:I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Are you under the impression this is what all Atheists believe?

Ken

Of course not. That is exactly why I shared this picture here and am asking.
Feel free to correct the picture and point out the mistakes and add your views etc.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The Atheistic view of the universe is that it started ....

Oh?

So, it didn't start? Does that mean it was eternal or?

Kurieuo wrote:Ice, if you don't mind answering a question, I'm intrigued to know why you wouldn't see something coming from nothing as absurd? I just considered it to be self-obvious really, so was a little surprised by your push-back.

This premise forms part of my argument for reasoning something must have always existed, it's just a matter of identifying who or what. This we can call "God" if a personal being, or "god" (if we believe such to be impersonal).

My kids understand such reasoning, whereas I think they might struggle to understand looking backwards where we only witness anything that exists being caused to exist (hence my son asked where did God come from?). The buck has to stop somewhere though with some immovable foundation that's always existed.

Yes. All that you said is correct. Haha, what's the problem again? Like, when I said it could very well have started from nothing (creation of the Earth or universe) I didn't mean that nothingness was before God -- that isn't compatible with what/who God is.

IceMobster wrote:

Kenny wrote:

IceMobster wrote:I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Are you under the impression this is what all Atheists believe?

Ken

Of course not. That is exactly why I shared this picture here and am asking.
Feel free to correct the picture and point out the mistakes and add your views etc.

Fair enough; I would start first with getting rid of the name, because anyone who has a clue about what Atheism is about would know there is no such thing as an Atheist Universe because Atheism is not about what you believe, but about what you do not believe.

Ken

IceMobster wrote:I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Even as a thiest I think this is pretty bad picture, filled with strawman arguments.

1. The common consensus would be that the matter always existed. So there would be no "nothing"
2. There is no such thing as an "ordered" universe, that is a loaded word. Theists who believe that are just putting stock in the wrong place. the more we know the more we understand that the universe is chaotic at best and worse mildly chaotic.
3. First signs of life came after first what happened was that chemical reactions happened.
4. False premise...no assistance needed if evolution happens.
5. Non-sequitur ... there is no book which says it has to be so. But this is still the wrong reason, even though it's technically correct. Pattern recognition is at the heart of all living things. in humans its much more enhanced and that has caused our brains to do more, process more but its a step by step procedure. Rationality is not a problem, even a bee can solve distance problems on its own scale. Conscience is not understood right now but there's research in that area incomplete but seems promising - e.g Crocs have big brains but their brains anatomy is different. the biggest portion of their brain is devoted to smell. Humans on the other hand have a lot of their brains working to process vision and perhaps conscience evolved because of a result of that, to distinguish between so much visual input and perhaps some other factors.

I think James Bishop attacked something he didn't understand.