"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of [skeptics] to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time".

- Bertrand Russell

@jbluhm86 said:

Haha

@oldbrownsfan said:

He made a joke?

I mean seriously, the jews were the chosen people, gods people, jesus came to save them, son of the same god, the jewish god, where's the confusion?

@gftchris said:

See fellow atheist Jbluhm's post.

@jbluhm86 said:

http://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-a-Jew.html

@gftchris said:

There's not a proof that it happened yet, I'm not asking anybody to accept it as fact, just saying 'this is the current thinking' - it's very much the cutting edge of physics. People aren't even sure on the conjecture yet, let alone how to test it. But that's the general idea.

And no more believable that the idea that there might actually be a species, or being, much more advanced then our selves that we cannot truly comprehend, but who can actually think in terms of eternity.

WSS

@oldbrownsfan said:

Wrong on about everything. You started off well stating Jesus is God but you went downhill after that.

"How do we know Jesus was Jewish? He went into his Father's business, and his mother thought he was God". - Harry Hart

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe you are on to something with this line of thought:

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:2,3—KJV)

@westside-steve said:

There's not a proof that it happened yet, I'm not asking anybody to accept it as fact, just saying 'this is the current thinking' - it's very much the cutting edge of physics. People aren't even sure on the conjecture yet, let alone how to test it. But that's the general idea.

@gftchris said:

Just don't expect anybody to agree that there's a logical proof that it happened.

Amigo hundreds of trillions more universes that all came from nothing doesn't sound much more logical to me. But again if it makes you happy and helps you lead a better life...

WSS

@oldbrownsfan said:

I can understand that that's a difficult thing to wrap your head around, but there are some theories at the moment that are quite promising. The general idea at the moment is that this universe is coming from a larger universe of many more dimensions, with many, many universes, like bubbles on your bath tub. You might ask where did the bath tub come from, but unfortunately, we can't know that, or even make a guess to be honest. We're observing four dimensions out of a theorised 30+ so it's difficult to draw real conclusions.

Either way, using an absence of fact as a proof of god is a sure fire way to have an ever reducing set of proof, and if that's your go to, home run reason why god must exist, I think you'll be in trouble. Maybe not you personally, I doubt we'll find the answer to the problem in our life times, but religion in general.

If it makes you feel better to believe that a god created the universe, then absolutely, more power to you. I don't doubt it helps you lead a better, happier life, and if it means you feel more inclined to spread your happiness around those less fortunate then have at it. Just don't expect anybody to agree that there's a logical proof that it happened.

Nothing Cannot Create Something

The definition of nothing is no-thing. It isn’t anything, and it doesn’t have the power to do anything.

Nothing can also be defined as the state of non-being

So as we look at the vast universe which we know had a beginning (as the bible states) the atheists will say it all came from nothing? What logic is that?

@oldbrownsfan said:

That is some pretty bogus logic:

"By taking a look at the world around us, we can see that it was designed and created by a supreme Being."

Some people might think that, others might not. It is not an absolute truth, far from it.

===============================

The fact that there are universal morals that we all share show that we all have a conscience, and that God is the one who wrote what is right and wrong in our hearts.

I think it's quite evident there is not a set of universal morals, even just on this board, let alone the wider world, and the as-yet-untouched tribes.

===============================

1. Premise 1 – Something exists
2. Premise 2 – Nothing cannot create something
3. Conclusion – Something must have always existed

What created the something? Assuming god is outside of our universe and has existed for greater levels of eternity than we could ever experience, what took him so long to build this universe? And what is he doing at the moment? Is he just playing the sims?

There are many scientific theories of how the universe cam into existence. Not many of them that I think of start with an absolute nothing.

===========================

You can tell me about the climate of Mars, or about Kepler-186f, and I’ll again say that there’s no concrete evidence that other life forms exist on those planets or anywhere else. - agree

On the other hand, the evidence for the Christian God is much more concrete. - wholeheartedly disagree. The evidence for a god is circumstantial at best, and circular and contradictory at worst. The evidence for life on other planets is circumstantial at best, but there's no "there must be life on other planets because the book says so and the book was written by someone from another planet, we know because the book says so" pseudo-logic involved.

===========================

Both Hawking and Lawrence Krauss propose that it’s theoretically possible for the universe to have come from nothing using M-theory, string theory, and quantum physics to do away with God as being the creator.

However, there are major flaws to M-theory, and there are a number of respected physicists who point out these flaws.

Uh-huh, one of the proposed theories is not perfect, therefore all are irrelevant, and we can conveniently ignore the works of the greatest minds of the 21st century. Gotcha.

===========================

I'm not going to poo-poo your personal beliefs (at least I'll try), but when you try to bring religion to a logic fight, you're going to lose.

Really, you can't prove mmgw exists, since there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

... ok... but where is the concrete evidence for god? You know, the thing he supposedly "proved".

You can't prove a god exists. You can show scenarios in which a god doesn't have to exist to be where we are today, but you can't prove god exists. Technically you can't prove god doesn't exist either. As we develop as a society there seems to be less and less of a need for a god though. Less things we need to explain with superstition.

@mld-woody said:

This is not the article I was looking for but it is from a former atheist who became a believer in God:

http://notashamedofthegospel.com/apologetics/proof-that-god-exists/

@tiamat63 said:

Kid, you take your comments FAR too seriously. You're just a cockroach.

@oldbrownsfan said:

That's fair.

can you repost the article here?

@mld-woody said:

I never debated the existence of God with atheists/unbelievers before and I quickly saw before anyone else had even said anything I was using circular reasoning. I posted an article earlier that made a good case for the existence of God without using the bible but to make the case for a personal God I have to use the bible. I have to use "what the bible says". I can use archeology discoveries to prove the accuracy of bible stories such as the story about Jericho but I cannot explain a personal God without the cross and without what the bible says about salvation. If you are talking with someone who doesn't believe the bible it is an immediate stalemate.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

I love how all of us are having a collective laugh and you toss in something like this.

You take yourself, and your politics, far....FAR too seriously.