jump to last post 1-50 of 84 discussions (381 posts)

Explain Creation without a Creator

  1. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Please explain your idea of how creation without a creator/creators happens or is possible.

    1. 0
      SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Impossible

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Then how do atheist's have so much faith that there isn't a creator if it can't logically be explained or ruled out?

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Atheists are wrong. You cannot know for sure that there is no God. You can know for pretty damn certain that there was a Big Bang, and that evolution took place (and takes place), but that was not the question.

          An atheist cannot know that no Being created the original stuff of the universe. Nor can an atheist know that there is no God (though the description of that God has to be logically, internally consistent, and not contradict itself).

          I don't believe in the white-bearded God, so to speak. And I don't believe in Jesus' incarnation.

          I don't believe in a Michelangelo-style creator either.

          But to say you *know* that no being started off the universe is to profess to know something that is unknowable (especially if you define "a being" loosely enough).

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with most accept for when you say something is unknowable. I think this is limiting to say. If a person keeps an open mind, who is to say what is knowable and unknowable? I agree with you on not sharing any others ideas as absolute and having an individual belief.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't quite understand your last sentence, to be honest.

              Strictly speaking everything is unknowable except that *I* exist in some sense. But what I mean is that I don't even see how someone could present evidence that would be agreed upon for this issue.

              Like many debates, much hangs on the definition of a key word. If by "know" you include experiences of "knowledge" that no-one else can verify, then that is one thing.

              But if by "know" you mean "something most people would agree to the truth of based on sufficient evidence, or rational argument" (not sure this is a good definition, mind you), then some things are unknowable. And a Creator would be one of them. The Bible does not count as evidence based on this definition, because most of the world's people don't accept it in the first place, and many of those people have rational grounds for not doing so.

              But if you are defining knowledge as a "sense of certainty personally felt" then you could claim revelation by the Holy Spirit as a valid path, for example.

              In the end there is a reason that an entire branch of philosophy (epistemology) is devoted to the topic of defining the word "know."

              As to the mind being limitless, well this was touched on in another thread, as you know, but, again, if you allow imaginative impulses as valid ways of knowing something, then I guess it is limitless, in some way. But I am not sure these are in fact allowable.

              The question becomes circular -- because who is to say what counts as "a valid way of knowing something." This, too, is open-ended...

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol I don't remember the conclusion on the other thread. It sounds like you don't agree with anyones belief as absolute, this is what I was referring to in the last sentenc. What do you mean that imagination isn't allowable? Imagination helps keep an open mind, why wouldn't it be allowed. More limits, lol. Why could no one present a case on this question? What creations doesn't have creators?

                1. kirstenblog profile image77
                  kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well if God exists then God is the creation or thing with no creators. This is actually a poorly worded sentence as it presumes anything that exists is a creation implying a creator above being a creation. This implication cannot be verified and proved through exacting and consistent universally understandable methods, if it was possible there would be no multiple religions and war caused because of them etc, and as such cannot be used to question and probe atheists who have and hold no acceptance for this creator God of religion.

                  There are many theories about the possible origins of the big bang and what came before. The membrane theory is by far the weirdest and hardest to understand as it works outside of the dimension of time, existence without beginning or end. There is the bang/crunch theory which makes the most sense to me.

                  The difficulty with this sort of subject is that people have a really hard time removing themselves from the time line. The idea of something with no beginning or end in the sense of time is beyond us and can only be understood in theory but never in literal terms.

                  The point of this thread is a thinly disguised attempt to convince atheists to change their beliefs (something for which I have no respect for, if you cannot respect others beliefs you do not deserve that respect youself) and if you really wish to force your beliefs of a God on an atheists the only logical argument that is likely to work is this:
                  If you believe in God and it turns out there is no God well heck its not like you are going to go to hell for believing in an imaginary God. If however you choose not to believe in God and it turns out that you are wrong, well, you may well go to hell, why take the risk?

                  By the way I do believe in a God and believe that She has spoken to me to comfort me when full of self doubt. She told me everything was ok and that I was exactly where I was meant to be. I just do not care for those who make my beliefs or those of other people their business. As a believer in a God I have more respect for most atheists then proclaimed believers.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    well stated.

                2. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If I imagine a fairy in the corner, it doesn't mean there are fairies -- unless you include "knowing" something to include things like "knowing" via the imagination. So there are limits. I cannot know what is going on in China today. But I can imagine it. There is a limit to my imagination to know things that are true, in my view.

        2. Nell Rose profile image91
          Nell Roseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are obviously not into quantum physics, or know how balanced the universe is. meaning something has to be behind it, it is too balanced and clever not to be. cheers.

        3. yolanda yvette profile image61
          yolanda yvetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Because they cannot relate to Him by way of their senses.  That's how they have so much "faith" that there isn't a creator.  However, their "faith" is leading them down the wrong path. 

          Atheists trust in what they can see and hear.  What they can touch and be touched by.  They are ruled by their senses.  They do not believe God is because they cannot see Him, verbally hear Him or feel Him.  If they could they would believe.  But God asks that we believe, even though we cannot see Him.  After all, that is faith.

          Faith is not believing that something isn't.  Faith believes it is.  I mean, anyone can disbelieve something or someone isn't there if they can't see it or them.  How much faith does it take to disbelieve?

          I don't believe there's a stack of hundred dollar bills sitting on my coffee table right now, because there isn't.  Now how much faith do you think that took?

          1. 61
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you have seen, heard and felt a god? Of course, answering in the affirmative opens a very large can of worms for you.



            Then, you must believe unicorns, leprechauns and flying pink dragons also exist because we can't see them, yes?



            According to your logic, the stack IS there if you believe it to be there. Are you now contradicting yourself?

    2. DogSiDaed profile image61
      DogSiDaedposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's not, but have you ever considered the possibility that the Universe WASN'T created?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes and I am open to any ideas on that, I haven't seen any rational ideas so far.

    3. double_frick profile image79
      double_frickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      you are asking for human, finite terms for a concept that is beyond our understanding.
      all was created, all is creation, and that is all that matters.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thats not what the elitist said.

    4. Gale Force profile image59
      Gale Forceposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Please explain how the creator came into existence, without being created?   

      Chicken or egg?

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        wink

    5. 59
      nabsdabzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The reality bubble that you all live is being pressured all the time. You only have to look at the double split experiment, bell's inequality theorum, entanglement theory, dark matter/dark energy to see that the stuff that really matters does not make into your daily media outlets.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The BBC covers a good bit of the sciences though. smile

    6. itech profile image55
      itechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We have defined the creator to those group of things which is responsible for it's birth.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol All of us haven't. Some refuse to say that anything is "made" or "created" even in the reality that every man made object is made or created. lol

    7. CrystalSingleton profile image61
      CrystalSingletonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's impossible. Everything comes from something or somewhere.

    8. illusion_reality profile image60
      illusion_realityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is a Creator. We have to respect the person's view why he/she believes in evoultion theory or Darwinism.

      Einstein did not believe in God but he believed that there is a Special Force working its way behind the creation.

      The evolution theory is a "theory", if it was true then why have we stopped evolving?

      Science helps us understand certain aspects of life but science is based on estimation and theories and man is behind the science and man is not perfect and will make errors.

      If you want to seek the truth, you need an open mind and an open heart. If you look around in the world, the mountains, the sea, the way the human organs work, the sun, the moon, the stars, and night interacting with day, the plants, and how each of them are designed with such detail and exact measurement, these are the signs of men of understanding..

      There is a Creator and Life has a purpose..

    9. RoamingInsomniac profile image61
      RoamingInsomniacposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Possibly, this was answered with that whole "Big Bang" theory?

    10. Google Gal profile image61
      Google Galposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That does not explain it.

        1. 61
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Correct, she probably is referring to abiogenesis.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The occurrance of spontainious life from none living matter, has yet to be proved.

            Just another guess, supposition, assumption, that is all.

            1. 61
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              By your religion or any other, that is most certainly true.



              Yup.

              1. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you.

                Man I have never had to have such a circulair marathon  connversation, to get aruond to the simple truth.

                Thank you.

                They are guesses.

                So to rely on them, requires faith in the one Guessing.

                See how that works.

                This one will probrably take forever to get to.

                1. 61
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sort of. But, the faith in which I'm confident in the consistency of the sun coming up tomorrow morning, for example, is the same faith used in science and not the faith used to purport the existence of that which is invisible and undetectable.

                  That's how it works.

                  1. TMMason profile image73
                    TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with you believing as fervently as you do.

                    That is as it should be.

                    That is the definition of faith.

                    Devotion to your belief, without factual evidence.

                    Is it not?

                    And there are no facts to support theories by definition. That is why they are theories.

                  2. mohitmisra profile image60
                    mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Awesome. smile

    11. chukra G profile image60
      chukra Gposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      read it in the forum that i post with your name smile

  2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    Majick

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol I thought magic wasn't logical.

      Is Majick the logical kind of magic?

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It makes as much sense as a bubbling brew spontaneously creating life. That would be majick.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol, I kinda have to agree with you. Can a brew be brewed without a brewer? I kinda agree that we could have been developed in chaos to result in our perfect balance considering the possible fact that everything works in positives and negatives to maintain a natural balance. I think it is pretty odd for anyone to rule out creation when it can't be logically ruled out. I haven't had many atheist responses so far. lol

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
            Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            With all our advanced science, knowledge of DNA and our vast evidence of evolution still we cannot produce one single cell organism.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I agree, I think we are amazing. I think it is only limiting for someone to limit themselves to things that aren't and can't be logically ruled out. This is only done through faith I believe. I think many atheist have much in common with religious belief although most aren't honest enough to admit to having/using faith.

              1. Make  Money profile image72
                Make Moneyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Hey I'm impressed Marine.

                Is this a Christmas miracle? smile

                I'm going to have to start reading your threads again.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Merry Christmas!

                  1. Make  Money profile image72
                    Make Moneyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you Sir.  Merry Christmas to you too and to our whole Hubpages community.

          2. Allan Bogle profile image80
            Allan Bogleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And there will be none about them having any knowledge concerning how reality came into being, so it is going to be a bit quiet.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol I am seeing this. And they call me illogical. lol I don't run from questions to protect my faith.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL

                I take a day off and this is the best you can come up with.

                "Creation"? LOLOLO

                So - you assume a creator by calling it a "creation"?

                LOLOLOLOLO lol lol

                Sure - every "creation" needs a "creator." lol lol

                You guys are funny.

                You all must be very angry to attack me the way you have been doing in the other threads. Did you lose a loved one and it upsets you when atheists point put how f******* ridiculous it is that you will see them in heaven? lol Sure - of course - They are living on a farm with jesus. lol lol

                No idea who is running the Jesus sock puppet. Not me - feel free to apologize - oh - that is right - you don't need to apologize when you attack some one without cause. Or "bear false witness."

                As long as it is for jesus.  lol

                As for you Marine - Glad to see you dun finally git with the program and be ' attacking un-American atheism like wot you was trained fer. Semper Fi. lol

                Deary me - so - You believe " there was a "creator," therefore it is a "creation." lol

                LOLOLOLOLO Bye bye logic.........

                Merry Christ Mass......

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  This is your idea of a logical response or debate?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    LOLOLO

                    No - it is an appropriate response to your statements. lol

                    Oh - you were looking for logical? I don't think so wink

                  2. Allan Bogle profile image80
                    Allan Bogleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I wish I had a dollar for every time he mentions the word "angry" in his posts. I would be putting up the last of my 48 solar panels on my 7500 sq. foot house by now.

                2. aguasilver profile image87
                  aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Mark, apologies if the 'sock puppet' was not you, it's just that you seemed the ONLY person with a sense of humor like that which displayed and the 'ganas' to raise such an outrageous topic... I thought it hilarious and posted the sock puppet without ANY attack in mind, but apologies for intimating that I thought it MUST be you.

                  If not you, then who?

  3. Beth100 profile image84
    Beth100posted 6 years ago

    It's called SCIENCE.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What do you mean? Is that your explanation of creation without a creator?

      1. Beth100 profile image84
        Beth100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'd love to explain, but I'm sitting in a ski lift and don't have the time.  Maybe later if I find my way back to this thread.

        It's a great question!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks. I am open to your explanation when you get time. Why are you on hubpages while on a ski lift? Are you addicted to hubpages? lol

          1. Beth100 profile image84
            Beth100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol  Trying not to drop my phone in the snow...but then maybe I am trying!  lol  Who knows, seems like only Freud had the answers!  lol

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol Don't lose the phone over hubpages, not worth it! lol I really don't know who Freud is, I will google him. Have fun skiing!

              1. Beth100 profile image84
                Beth100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks!  This has to be the longest lift ever!  I'm heading off now!!  Later Marine!

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Later, Have fun.

    2. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I still haven't heard the explaination for, "Science", explaining or knowing the creation of life.

      Its called "assumptions"! Not "knowing".

      Where has science created anything near life. Never mind been able to eplain the spontainious creation of life in the midst of some great cosmological accident.

      So again.

      Where is the proof? I hear alot about science from alot of folks on here, but I don't see any scientific evidence that supports any of the hogwash science spouts as facts.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hello TM, how you doing?

        I would even like to know if it would be called science without creation to name it science. lol

    3. Lydia Rose profile image61
      Lydia Roseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      WHAT?

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. God is a hell of a scientist, among other things.

  4. dingdong profile image60
    dingdongposted 6 years ago

    Marine - what's your definition for creation?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is a good question. I guess origin of life.

      1. dingdong profile image60
        dingdongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So you only guess?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol, I don't think we are making forward progress. I guess I guess. How is that? lol I don't know anything, so I have to only guess. What do you think began existence?

          1. dingdong profile image60
            dingdongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If you call it 'creation' it's just your problem, then say how do you define a creator?

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol I didn't know I have a problem to referring to something as being made or created. Thanks for being my psychiatrist. I appreciate that. Are you going to answer my question or play Dr. Phil? I define a creator as a maker of something made or created, what else would I define it as? You looking for me to throw in some religious hooks that you can hop on?

              1. dingdong profile image60
                dingdongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't mention anywhere about psychiatry in my post, good luck with your word twisting and all. You are not going to play fair, so good bye!

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol Me not playing fair? Word twisting?


                  You refuse to answer a single question. Who's not playing fair?

                  1. dingdong profile image60
                    dingdongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, you did twist my words and you certainly are aware of it. I only said what you guess/think/assume is your problem, that should be taken as "it is all upto you". But what you did... you twisted my words to mean as though I accused you of having psychotic problems. Didn't you? While it's like this, why would you expect me to answer your silly questions?

                    Keep twisting and playing around, I'm not for it. Good bye!

  5. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Science explained Creation of Earth.

    Science also explained Earth's evolution to sustain Life.

    Therefore, a 'creator' is a myth. Only supported by those who personally believe in God or a Higher Power.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Did science explain science or did creation explain science? Why do you limit your mind?

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Did science explain science? This is sad. If you don't know what science is, then go learn.

        Did creation explain science? No.

        My mind isn't limited. And, it isn't for you to say that my mind is limited, since you don't see things from or thru my eyes or know the knowledge for which I've learned. Your question insinuates an untruth, so you can justify your own position.

        Have a nice day. I don't plan letting you to continue to twist what I say. Enjoy.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol You are constantly throwing together faithful thoughts. Do you put any logic into your responses?

          Tell me what science is? How would there be science with no one alive to explain or learn science? What good would science be if there was no creation to study it?

          I'm stating the obvious. If you state something as absolute which logically can't be ruled out, you are making a faith based assumption. This is limiting to your mind whether you agree or disagree.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Look at who is making a faith based assumption about someone else's logic? You're sad.



            You want to know what science is? I told you to go learn about it.



            Like I said....you twist words to suit yourself. If Earth didn't evolve to support human life, then no science wouldn't be. DUH!



            You have a firm believe that there are not absolutes in life, therefore, you can only twist words, so you can justify your belief.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Are these your serious responses or do you want to try again?

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lmao

    2. khmohsin profile image60
      khmohsinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What do you know about science?, Science is nothing but a bunch of contradicting theories. Science is just an effort to explore the unknown?

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed. The contradiction though is squarely placed in the fact that science provides those with the convenience of computers, internet connections and forums in which they can write and share with others their denial of those conveniences.

  6. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Why am I not getting many answers on this thread? Is this not an easy question for anyone that rules out the possibility of creation?

    1. 0
      e-lylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am afraid this is a classic 'Which came first the chicken or the egg?' or maybe that old favorite, 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.' Of course, the second one requires a belief in angels.

      Really, what does it matter, whether there is or isn't?

      Unanswerable questions do drive up page views, don't they?

  7. Daniel Carter profile image89
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    It seems to me we have a lot of evidence in the way of puzzle pieces that we can't quite fit together just yet. In other words, there are lots of theories and explanations without any truly undeniable, incontrovertible evidence. Believers base it on a scriptural description and faith. Science seems to use all physical evidence it can find, and it still isn't enough.

    At least no one has given me enough evidence one way or the other to relieve my doubts.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you. I don't take anything as absolute. This includes ruling things out based on faith.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

    3. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      Is not believing in creation logical? How?

    4. 59
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

      You can, but it requires a lot of blind faith and assumptions....ironic huh......

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol It really is.

    5. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      I think there are some nice hidden agendas at the base of atheism that no atheist leaders would like to own up to.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.

        Nice to see you marine. Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Merry Christmas to you too! I think I should ups Mark a Christmas tree! lol It might cheer him up.

      2. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Atheist leaders? This is an extremely odd turn-of-phrase.

        If you mean people like Richard Dawkins, then I agree with you.
        But I would be willing to bet that most atheists barely know the first thing about him and his type. Could be wrong, though, I guess...

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol, maybe I worded that wrong. I meant the founders and current public speakers like Dawkins. I think most educated atheist know of Dawkins as a leading atheist.

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Possibly. But I don't think most atheists think much about these things one way or the other, to be frank.

            If Jesus comes back tomorrow and asks most Westerners "Do you believe in me" the answer from most (outside the US, anyway, perhaps), is likely to be "Never really thought about it, to be honest".

    6. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago

      So - why is it a "creation" ? wink

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why is it not?

        Why is anything anything?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hey - if you think it is a "creation" it must have a "creator" - right? lol

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ok elitist atheist, what is it and how is it?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are the one with the assumptions.

              I have no need to give it a name. It is - does that need a creator? No........

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol You deny anything and everything being a creation? Ok, "it is", how and why is it?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No - I do not. You are the one with the assumptions. You assume it is a creation - therefore it needs a a creator.

                  I Prefer not to believe that until there is some evidence......

                  If you have something other than faith based assumptions - I am all ears.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I am asking if you define anything as creation? If so, what?

                    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      "Creation" assumes a "creator" does it not? So - no - I do not need to make that assumption. Sorry.

    7. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      If the atheist belief system didn't tell it's faithful followers that there was no God or creator as an absolute, would there be an atheist belief system?

      I don't think so. I think it runs on faith as religion. Mark, you are religious.

      1. Allan Bogle profile image80
        Allan Bogleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Make it very simple for them. You are going to see ludicrous posts over everything but what you wanted to know. Ask how reality came into being.

        It is a simple question though I would imagine one or two will ask "but why do we call it reality....?"

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Simple? Oh you mean like "god dun it"? OK

          If that works for you - be my guest. Sorry you are not going to meet your loved ones in heaven. sad

          You must be very, very angry. I don't blame you.

          In fact - I forgive you. wink

          1. Allan Bogle profile image80
            Allan Bogleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hey I got anothe dollar! Another mention of "angry."

            You are one sensitive young man. Another hub in the making perhaps?

            I did notice you still have not answered marine's question. Lets make this real simple Mark:

            How did physical reality come into existence? Lets see if you can answer that (I will even let you mention the word "angry" again).

            Here is the question again: How did physical reality come into existence?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know and I am happy with that answer - because I do not know.

              Wait - you do know and "it was god"? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

              I don't blame you for being angry at not knowing - but making stuff up... That is disgusting. And sad. No wonder you are so angry.

              It must drive you insane when people laugh at your simplistic, meaningless answer. "God did it but I cannot define god."

              I bet you lost some one close and are now heart broken that they will not be waiting in heaven for you.

              How sad. sad

              1. Allan Bogle profile image80
                Allan Bogleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There we go! Now that wasn't so hard now was it? It took awhile but you got it out!




                Hey I got two more "angrys!" 

                Speaking of how angry you are I am reading your hub (er, anger- fueled tirade) here: http://hubpages.com/hub/christians-on-hubpages where you are bitterly complaining about how you have been treated. Just finished your sentence "One christian looks much the same as another from most people’s perspective and quite honestly – if I was in power, I would be feeding the noisy buggers to the lions right now..."

                Now that is what I call a sensitive young man! Advocating violence eh?

                Having read half of it so far you have already mentioned half a dozen individuals who really piss you off.



                Not at all but it is suddenly clear after finishing that temper tantrum hub you wrote why you are so furious. As I have told you before people disagree and while it may feel therapeutic for you to write a small novella bitterly crying over how people have treated you, you need to recognize the fact that you will always find people who do not agree with you. It is a fact of life.

                Grow up, get over it. Remember what your motto at the end of that hub is: "Can I prove it? No sir. Do I have any evidence? No I do not."

                Eleven thousand angry posts on these forums and you still claim not to know a damn thing. Just make sure no one else does eh Mark?

                1. aguasilver profile image87
                  aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Now - this is one of those most vile christians."

                  Fame at last!

                  I wrote a reply to Marks hub, which I guess he never read.

    8. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      I haven't attacked you at all Mark.

      My question still stands and is valid.

      Show me where science proves anything about any aspect of creation, or spontanious life?

      I don't care about the semantics of it. How does science explain life?

      It, science, propounds assumptions as fact. That doesn't make them fact, though.

    9. 59
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

      If you write it he will come

    10. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago

      You put de lime in de coconut and shake 'em both up...
      And presto! A human is formed!

      1. 59
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Dam...its really dat simple!!?? LOL

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lime is 'code' for penis...duh... wink

      2. kirstenblog profile image77
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is the most serious response I have seen so far! It is far less silly then most of what I am reading just now roll

        Off to find a more peaceful forums me thinks wink

    11. dfunzy profile image59
      dfunzyposted 6 years ago

      Could you explain the creator? A creator without being created?

    12. dfunzy profile image59
      dfunzyposted 6 years ago

      Could you explain the creator? A creator without being created? Is this what is meant by creation without a creator?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How do you think life came to exist?

    13. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago

      But I agree that Dawkins has a hidden agenda. Hitchens too. Of course, that agenda could be hidden from themselves.

      I agree with Dawkins on most things in regard to evolution, biology, the brain, etc. (not that I am qualified to have an opinion, to be honest), though think his views on cultural anthropology are a case of stepping outside his own bounds (ironically!). I also agree with a lot of what Hitchens says (though not his stance on Iraq, and he is often polemical when he claims he is being matter-of-fact).

      But both Dawkins and Hitchens are wrong about one thing: that the world would be better off without religion.

      Yes, in some ways, the world would indeed be better off without religion. But the question "Does religion do more harm than good?" has an unknowable answer wink

      I mean, who's to say. If Mother Theresa went to Calcutta and helped people because of religion, clearly there is something in religion that is GOOD.

      Their position, ironically, is both unscientific and irrational.

    14. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Still waiting to see that science that speaks to the inception of reality/creation, etc.

      You might as well include life also. Show me how science explains in a more logical fashion the "beginning" of all things.

      Science can't even explain the Cambrian Explosion. Never mind where and how, or what started life, or existence as we know it.

      And Mark. Athiests and science has its faith basis also.

      You cannot know. So you base what you do know, on what you think you know. Which means you don't really know. But, you think this or that must be, because of what you think you know.

      That is the scientific faith many base their beliefs upon. Because,.... science doesn't know.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just because science can't explain everything, does not mean there is a God. Who knows how the hell it all started? The most-adhered to explanation in the world is the Buddhist one. Let's go with that -- it's lasted 2,600 years, and has its antecedents in Hinduism, which has lasted thousands.

        And those Asians built fantastic, complex, civilizations while we were groping in the mud. So I'd be willing to go with this theory. Science, as you say, has no power to refute it.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have not stated their is a God. Not in my replies. I dont care to debate the existence or non existence of God. Just the science everyone claims proves this or that, and it does not.

          Thats all.

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And you are right. Except that I am not sure how many professional scientists claim that -- though lots of (ill-informed) lay-people do, I suspect.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well? Someone mentioned Dawkins a while back, and his ilk claim to, "know". But I agree. Most scientists tend not to state anything so arrogant as to, "know".

    15. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 6 years ago

      I know that this thread has become another pissing match between the atheists and Christians, but the only honest answer is we don't know. We don't know how existence came into being, and it is probably well beyond our ability to understand at this point. Those who have a certain answer are just choosing to believe what they want to believe.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for so bold an honesty. That is exactly what I have been saying. We don't know. Seems alot of these threads are about things we simply do not know.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My Compliments to you both, both of you, extremely well stated. The truth is WE DON"T KNOW. We may never KNOW.
          Knowing and believing are two seperate things. I Believe because I choose to believe, and believing makes me feel better. I have no proof nor does anyone else. We may never have any proof ever so believe what you want to believe, but don't try and tell someone else to believe what you do without proof , because proof to the contrary is what it takes to change a persons beliefs.

      2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Now this is TRUTH.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not so any more. See Lawrence Kraus's wonderfully clear explanations on the BBC. the first lecture lasts for 27 minutes and includes questions from a scientific audience, I have put the links up and had no replies. The religionists do not want to know. smile

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I just knew this would NOT start a frenzied Google hunt by religionists looking for Kraus.
            None so blind..... lol

          2. aguasilver profile image87
            aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Can you put them up again ernest, and can they be viewed outside of the UK?.... the BBC have some rules about not being able to access BBC iPlayer from outside of the UK?

          3. aguasilver profile image87
            aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            OK found a download at:

            http://www.savevid.com/video/a-universe … -2009.html

            Thanks, I'll catch it during the saturnalia break! smile

    16. Uninvited Writer profile image85
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

      For those who don't know. Douglas Adams was a novelist and a satirist...

      42 is the meaning of life smile

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree, the meaning of life is seasoning ... wink

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No UW is right! UW is not often wrong about things, and this time she speaks with the authority of "Deep Thought" Which, after a very very long time discovered the answer was 42. It was not well received then either, but truth is, the answer is 42. smile

    17. 0
      sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

      Life that begins after the undergraduates blow up the chem lab.

    18. double_frick profile image79
      double_frickposted 6 years ago

      the elitist?
      regardless, it seems you are insisting atheists offer up their explanation for how the universe came into existence without, as you say they believe, a creator to create it.
      contemplating these things are not the path for all in this life. and being fixated on others spiritual view only hinders your own.

      it does not matter, all that matters is your own explanation if you can come up with one. or you can rely on one of the default explanations littered throughout our societies. the choice is yours. as it is everyones personal choice whatever they choose to believe.

      i simply stated my belief is that there is, of course, a creator if you wish to call it that, but that as far as i am concerned i understand with my limited human understanding there is no way to define or even comprehend that which has created, or thought up all of this wonderful creation. at best i can catch a glimpse through feelings; but to define it would be a lie. and that is a "sin"

    19. mcbean profile image82
      mcbeanposted 6 years ago

      Just because we can't understand how things came about doesn't mean there is a creator.

      All Gods were devised by humans to give meaning to the seemingly inexplainable.

      Good crop = Thanks God

      Storm kills family = Vengeful God.

      Humans struggle to understand that sometimes, s#@t happens.
      Doesn't mean there is anyone driving our world.

      The various creators help people cope emotionally in times of hardship and stress. This is the true power of religion.
      This is where religion does the most good.
      When we try and formalize religion,and impose it on others, bad things happen.

      I firmly believe that we are moving forward with no one at the helm, and that the power of religion would be much greater if we all let each other get on with it.

      Many take comfort from their god in hard times. I take the same comfort from the randomness of our world.I am at peace with dying and that being the end for me forever.
      The religious among us have the right to believe as they will but should remember that just because they believe and cannot think of another explanation, doesn't mean there has to be a god.

      Random acts of evolution over millions of years is at least as probable as a creator and at least has some physical evidence to back it.

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it can explain our existence as far back as simpler life forms. And life can be explained by chemistry. And chemistry can be explained by physics. Beyond that, we're still very much in exploratory mode. smile

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Science can in no way explain spontanious creation or life, or the "Beginning. You can hypothisize all you want. But that isn't knowing.

          If we knew the chemistry to create spontanious life we would have created it by now. And there is no evidence for evolution. the fossil record is so full of holes it isn't funny. That is not proof. or evidence.

          Get real.

          I agree that all the theories are just as probable as the creationist view. But NONE have been proven.

    20. Lady Guinevere profile image60
      Lady Guinevereposted 6 years ago

      I agree.

    21. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago

      The corpse of this poor old horse is rotting and shredded from the constant excoriation. Wait...it has a message pinned to its nose. It says "Merry Christmas or Happy Hannukuh or Cheery Festivus or Have a Great Friday on the 25th!"

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Haha! smile The same to you!

    22. blackjava profile image52
      blackjavaposted 6 years ago

      I have a question.

      If you believe there is a god and if you believe god created humans and if you believe god created humans in his own image and knowing that about a million years ago the first human life forms where very much like apes wouldn't that mean god looks like an ape ??
      Or maybe he( or she) is an ape because some people believe humans evolved from apes.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your kidding me right?

        Evolution doesn't say we came from apes.

        It states all mammals and in continuance all homonids, came into being along the same evolutionary branch.

        Each branch having sprigs sprouting from it, along it's course.

        Each sprig is representative of a homonid, each homonid being a further advanced type of ape/man.

        Being our closest mammalian relative, doesn't automatically make an ape our genetic ascendent.

        Your stretching it there.

        1. blackjava profile image52
          blackjavaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And what part would I be stretching? The study of anthropology pretty much shows that the original human life forms where very ape like. I didn't say we where descended from apes. I said some people believe that. After all, there are still people who hope to find the missing link.

          So my question stands. Knowing that the original humanoids certainly don't look like we do today, what would your god look like( assuming that you believe in a god)

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Haven't bothered with the God part. Have I?

            Just clearifying the evolution point.

            Your welcome to believe as you want.

            I mis-read. I thought you were pronouncing from the mount that we are apes. If you had been stating evolution proves we are from apes, then I would have an issue.

            But since your not. I don't.

            My answer would be, "Spirit".

            1. blackjava profile image52
              blackjavaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I like that answer.

              Can I presume that you believe the essence of man is his spirit or soul?
              If that was the case then would it be that god created man in the image of his spirit? Which would  essentially make him face less. ( if you believe there is a god:)

              1. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes the essence of man is his Spirit.

                God created man first in his image, that of Spirit.

                Then he created the form of man in the flesh and imparted to him that breath of life called the soul. Which in my opinion is nothing more than a flickering breeze, a shadow of our true spirits.

                If you read Genisis. God created man twice. First in Spirit, then in flesh.

    23. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      I am a long way from the UK aqua I downloaded it after I heard it on the science show.
      I will try to find the link, thanks for the interest, I appreciate it. smile

      1. aguasilver profile image87
        aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am always interested in knowledge and truth, I believe I have found it, but that does not stop me continually checking that my belief is correct.

        That's how I came to faith, by challenging my non belief against new information and being open to the concept that I can be wrong.

        Hopefully we are all open to correction and new realities.

        If you find the link, can you email me off my profile, I may miss the post of it, as my son arrives home tomorrow from NY and I expect to spend less time trawling (or should i say trolling? smile) the forums!

        Could I find it just on Kraus? - I'll look now and come back to you if I do, if not, I must away to sleep (it's 2.10am here) so if I don't come back please let me know if you find it.

        John

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Earnest, I watched the video. I really question his character and ideaology to believe anything he says. He has one video promoting Obama in support of funding for man made global warming. I think global warming is a scandal to get more money out of uneducated citizens. I also question his motives in the video. His bashing of religion took away from the scientific points he was attempting to make. Also, how much was Dawkins paying him and how much was he there to promote his book and atheist idealogy? I find it funny how he says to have humility in how much science doesn't know and has the hypocrisy to claim knowing the origins of the beginning in his absolute claim that something can come from nothing.

        1. ronjer1 profile image60
          ronjer1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          that's funny cuz Krauss is actually pushing a new science fiction religion.
          all those idiots grew up with star trek, so what do u expect.
          Genesis in the bible make more sense than Krauss.

          I'd like to ask this idiot Krauss "what is it that we dont know?"
          his message is that we know almost everything.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Usual dishonest information! If anyone wants to discredit his science, do so scientifically, his character is not in question. For others who want to know, look him up, he is a smart highly respected scientist, and the BBC is no pusher of any one persons beliefs. they also offer panel discussions about subjects, always with the worlds best minds. smile
            Very dishonest reply, most disappointed in your capacity to reason.!

            1. ronjer1 profile image60
              ronjer1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              but his science fiction has been refuted all the way to the moon and back one hundred fold.
              look it up, just like you looked him up.
              it doesnt matter if he belongs to the religion of atheism or christianity, his character is not the issue, its his dogma.
              i'm sure he is a nice person and smart.
              but he knows how to play the game to get government grants, conjure up science fiction to feed the sci-fi junkies out there. and line his pockets too.
              churches, governments, etc. are all guilty of falsely justifying their position for the mighty buck

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with you, no one knows his true intentions and motives behind what he claims to know. I disagree that character and ideaology have nothing to do with his motives. It's his character and ideaology that lead to his motives.

                He talked about a hook in one video I saw of him. He knows he needs a hook to capture believers to his ideaology. I think this is his hook. "The universe is flat, so a creator isn't neccessary."

          2. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I also found it disgusting at his arrogant elitist attitude especially at the end of the video when he talks about humility of how much science doesn't know. I think he is quite the hypocrite. lol

        2. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Here is the link of the video I am referring to on Lawrence Krauss. I am open to any disagreements on what I wrote.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

          Here is his video promoting Obama and money for man made global warming.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3KmUVsTSo

          1. ronjer1 profile image60
            ronjer1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            just listen to his comments at the end.
            he confuses infinity with a number, and gives an example of an infinite hotel.
            any so-called scientist who uses infinity to describe objects, is by definition an idiot.
            sci-fi talk: quantum fluctuations will produce the people in this room an infinite amount of times.
            Krauss is a total quack, not in touch with reality

    24. kess profile image60
      kessposted 6 years ago

      Hey Marine I can give you a pretty simple but most logical answer.

      I hope you were not bored but this "Lots of nothing" post.
      You see that is the reality of the "nothings", they have nothing to offer but still offers you  all of it..

      God hides things in the open  light where the dark minds cannot see it.

      Look how hard is is for grown adults to comprehend a simple question to give a logical answer.

      Ask a sleepy Child the same question and I bet you that Child need not be fully awake to comprehend and give a logical answer.

      If the answer is important to you ask me in private, for I won't cast pearls before swines.

    25. bojanglesk8 profile image61
      bojanglesk8posted 6 years ago

      It's something our minds cannot fathom.
      Us trying to fathom the OP's concept is like ants trying to fathom Advanced Calculus.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It has been explained more than adequaitly in fact. smile I am sick of posting the link!!!

        Not one sensible comment on the information, just a couple of people took half a look to decide what they could disagree with, but wound up attacking the author who has more credibility than any other person in science on these matters and has won numerous awards for explaining the complexity of it all.
        Those blind by choice always pass over anything that will show them wrong, yet most atheists I know would believe in a god instantly if there were even one iota of proof!
        What a crock!! Religion= Stuck in an intellectual dark age by choice! lol

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Come on Earnest. I watched and hour and 4 minute video and you think I am writing to protect religion? Do you think I am religious? How do lawyers pose their case to find out if a person is credible or not? They research the character and idealogy of the person. You didn't answer my question on him. How can he be so hypocritical to say how much science doesn't know then claim the absolute that the universe started without a starter. This is his theory he wants to push to sell himself and atheist belief. I think he is just in it for the money.

        2. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Have you seen some of the engineering feats that ants have acomplished. I would not discount what you think they know, or do not, Earnest. They are pretty smart lil buggers. They may have a better grasp on advanced mathematics than any of us.

          1. mohitmisra profile image60
            mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            They have a elaborate cooling system for their ant hill or ant mound  which man is copying.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yup. We are trying to copy alot of different things creatures in nature use or create. That is the most excellent observational lab there is. Nature and those things and creatures within it can teach us a hell of a lot if we choose to learn from it.

          2. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ants blow my mind!! I have been known to watch them all day! smile

    26. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      In this video, Dawkins and Krauss both come to an agreement that evolution is a fact. Does a fact equal an absolute? I thought there were no absolute facts in science because it leaves no room for error? How can something be a fact that doesn't explain everything? Aren't claimed facts that leave no room for error limiting to new knowledge that can be learned? I think so.

      I don't think the elitist scientist's are as bright as they believe they are. How much money are they making by promoting each others "facts"?


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25WPs7oJ … 51C8318996

    27. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      In this one Dawkins and Krauss are analyzing how to get religion and the public to better accept evolution as a fact and absolute.

      What hypocrites they are. They consistently mock religions and the public with their elitist attitudes, and then get mad because the public doesn't worship their ideas. lol


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snvD-8tJ … 51C8318996

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yup. It most certainly does take as much faith to believe in evolution, as it does any religion. Maybe more.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.

          Here, Dawkins say's clearly that his motives are to destroy religion. His agenda is to promote his "facts" and his atheist book sales, not to discover absolutes. He already knows the absolutes, or at least he thinks he does. An open minded scientist he is. lol


          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mop9GzJo … 51C8318996

    28. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      In this one, the elitist ones Dawkins and Krauss talk about why it is idiotic and pointless to theorize about universal point of the universe. lol Ridiculous!

      I thought these guy's are supposed to be some of the top minds in the world? How do top minds of the world limit their mind by thinking theory and unknown questions are stupid? I can't believe the hypocrisy of these 2. They claim to be logical and continually contradict themselves. Logic isn't based on contradictions. Krauss also talks about how many emotions he has in his work. Emotions isn't logic, it's faith.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5kPoaeg … 51C8318996

    29. 61
      (Q)posted 6 years ago

      My goodness, what a thread.

      Firstly, I would like to comment on those dissing Dawkins and others. It has been my observation that those who criticize and make up ridiculous claims about Dawkins are the ones who know the least about him. Shameful, really.

      Secondly, the author of the OP stated a creator but did not go into any details about said creator. And, considering not many theists actually agree on or can provide any details on what the creator is and what process creation underwent, the OP is rather pointless.

      Of course, one does not really dismiss out of hand the claims of theists who do believe their particular "creator" created the universe. I'm sure we can make a grand list of their claims to their gods, what they look like and how they created the universe, then begin to entertain their points and put them to the test, if possible.

      If not testable, we can simply place their claims in the standard categories of possibilities and probabilities, which in their cases, are infinitesimally small, hence irrelevant.

      If we look to science for these answers, we find several theories on how the universe was created, some theories having more evidence than others, some none at all except perhaps purely mathematical evidence (Brane/String theory) that can't be tested based on our current level of technologies. Maybe, one day.

      Its a question that can't be answered, one way or the other, at this time.

      So, if one feels that their particular god created the universe in a particular way, they are free to believe in the magical and mysterious and are free to stand on their soap boxes and bleat baseless assertions.

      Others who may approach the question who are actually looking for answers will find them by observing the universe itself, rather than pretending it was a rabbit pulled from a hat.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol, Now I would like you to back all of your faith based assumptions about me with logic. What are my beliefs on creation and where did I state my beliefs as absolute and content? How do I give details of my belief of creation when it is in theory just like science? You are pretty sharp aren't you. lol

        1. 61
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You didn't, that was my point. You said nothing about a "creator"



          Again, you didn't, that was my point.



          Well, sharp enough to understand the OP is pointless.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol You are clearly on board with Krauss and Dawkins. Say theorizing about design is pointless. Maybe you are pointless for not thinking you have a point.

            1. 61
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Where did I say that I'm on board? I simply pointed out the many misinformed opinions about them here.



              If you say so.

              1. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And those points, or mis-informed opinions would be? Specifically, mind you. So as to have no confusion on the so called facts about them.

    30. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Dawkins and his ilk really do not need anyone to speak for them, and your observation that,... "that those who criticize and make up ridiculous claims about Dawkins are the ones who know the least about him. Shameful, really."

      Is really absurd. Because he speaks for himself in alot the presentations I have seen. No idiocy need be applied to his words or logic, it is inherrant.

      Just my observation.

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, he does speak for himself and I've read many misinformed opinions about what people "believe" he spoke about. This thread is full of them.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol I noticed you didn't debate anything on a specific video I mentioned, you just make faithful generalizations. I am commenting on the videos I watched, not what others said. I think you are confused.

          1. 61
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I could really care less for the misinformed opinions of those who attack Dawkins and others. I'm sure many here could go on forever making up stuff. It's irrelevant and only demonstrates their intellectual dishonesty.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol, Please share what I am so misinformed on and what I am making up? I am only stating the obvious. What comments am I dishonest on?

            2. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Okay. Thats the ole liberal what-for. He told you, Marine.

              Sounds like he talked to you on one of your bait'em up days. And Q learned very well eh?

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol I love it. He defends atheist belief along with Krauss and Dawkins using faith without logic. He provides no logical explanations of why he believes what he writes. Then he gets mad when others make assumptions of saying he is a blind supporter of the 2. lol

    31. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      At the end of this video, Krauss's "Liberal Idealogy" and ties are exposed when he makes attacks on Bush for Bush stating that science and the possibility of intelligent design should be exposed in schools. Krauss thinks it is stupid because there is no debate of whether intelligent design exists or not. Krauss wants strictly science taught with no possibilies outside of science. Krauss is claiming to know absolute truth by ruling out possibility of intelligent design even though it can't be ruled out. I think Krauss has a warped ideaology trying to sell his agenda and beliefs rather than teach people to have an open mind. What a ignorant scientist.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A78u4Nuq … 51C8318996

    32. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      How much profit does science and atheism make each year based on blind faith?

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why don't you tell us... er... make something up?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know, didn't you see the "?" mark?

          1. 61
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Come now, you were joking, right? Making up a funny? Good one.

    33. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Hey Marine you have a wonderful Christmas. You to Q. And everyone else.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks. You have an excellent Christmas as well along with everyone else.

    34. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      Here is Dawkins website supporting Global Warming. lol

      Atheism is a money scam tied into liberal idealogies and faith along with man made Global warming as it seems! Atheism is no doubt a religion.


      http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1073


      Here are some arguements to man made Global Warming.


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zb … re=related

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9Ia … re=related

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh boy, conspiracy theories mixed with fallacies! Can't wait to hear those fairy tales.

        http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/watchdrama8jm.gif

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are backed with logic faithful one. Just like science theories are "supposed" to be. Not for political persuasion.

          1. 61
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Now, that's funny! Bwahahahaha!

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Is it false?

              1. 61
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The conspiracy theories or the fallacies?

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Any of them? Are they false? Prove them false and stupid.

                  1. 61
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But, you did such a fine job of that already.

    35. sooner than later profile image60
      sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

      Bovine, I just read your profile. Are you building a character?

      1. Bovine Currency profile image61
        Bovine Currencyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Be more specific.

    36. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      You, Q, stated this post was full of factual errors and mis-information in regards to Dawkins. Point it out.

    37. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      Here is a video of the founder of the weather channel describing how Gore and the media has shut down him along with 30,000 scientist including 9,000 PHD's that say global warming is a political scam. lol What does he know, he's only the founder of the weather channel. He wants to sue Al Gore! lol

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR3 … re=related

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, it sure is a good thing you don't use conspiracy theories as evidence to support your agenda.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol What is my agenda? Prove """1""" of them wrong.

    38. 0
      sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

      Merry Christmas!

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Merry Christmas!

    39. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      After looking over the thread, I find it pretty disturbing how so many "claimed" scientific logical atheist minds rule out possibility of a maker/creator when it can only be logically ruled in. I thought scientist are supposed to only count things as evidence based on what can be ruled out. lol

      Who is the irrational one?

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        When you set up a fallacious premise by not defining your terms; ie. 'creator', and then fallaciously, not logically, rule it in, you're in the best position to make up your own "logic".



        That's merely your own lack of understanding science.



        Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. More accusations with no explanations behind them.

          Creator = Maker          No Comprende? Not logical to you? lol

          lol Explain how I am wrong on my idea of science? It is ludacris for a scientist to say something is impossible when it can't be logically ruled out. They are making a faith based assumption if they say so. What is the science of a contradiction? It logically rules out anything that contradicts to find logical truth.

          Prove that a creator or maker isn't logical. lol

          1. 61
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In order for me to understand whether it is logical or not would require an explanation from you, not a one word qualifier.

            The flaw in your argument is glaringly obvious, you haven't defined 'creator', but instead used a thesaurus.

            And the fact that a 'creator' is defined in so many different ways by so many cultures, religions and what have you, your premise becomes meaningless.

            Comprende?



            What scientist said impossible about what? Your vague generalizations are rather exactly that; vague.



            Huh?



            I could try if you would just stop laughing long enough to provide a definition and explanation.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              My only premise is that a creator can't logically be ruled out. How do I define a creator or creation by more that what I already see? I see many things made/created in life. Anything else would be misleading because I don't know. Are you just fishing for me to write something irrational you can hop on? Are you looking for a hook? lol

              The leading atheist scientist's constantly contradict themselves. I can't make you watch the videos. They rule out possibility of creation one minute, then they whisper how little they know and admit creation can't be ruled out.

              1. Bovine Currency profile image61
                Bovine Currencyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Your only premise is that a creator can't logically be ruled out?

                Great.  So what is your conclusion?

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Silly Elitist, Why would I have a conclusion when I learn something new everyday? There are many examples in life of things that are made/created.

              2. 61
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm looking for a definition and explanation of the term 'creator' by YOU, considering this term has many definitions according to a wide variety of beliefs. How many times do I have to explain this to you?



                So, it would appear that all you do is toss out the inane and ineffectual to bait others and make yourself look the fool.

                C'ya.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol, How do you ask me to define something when no defintions are absolute to me? The basic definition of a creator is someone that makes or creates something. I think you want more than a definition. I think you want me to list something that you can pick apart as irrational for being an assumption. How am I trying to bait someone for stating the logical and obvious? Are you sure you aren't the one baiting?  Is it not logical to you that things are made and created?

                  1. 61
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Such a happy fellow you are, laughing inanely all the time.

                    But, it would appear that we are actually getting somewhere now. Yes, that is exactly the point, there are no definitions that are absolute or even remotely close to being little more than vague and generalized.



                    Someone? Who is that someone, exactly?

                    Or, am I free to substitute a someone myself? I can therefore chose the someone in your definition to be an invisible, pink dragon that created the universe in a sneeze, or the someone is a Brhama who splits a lotus flower thus creating the universe, or any of a thousand versions of creationism one wishes to conjure or believe.



                    You already did that and I pointed it out.



                    Stating the vague and generalized is not the same as stating the logical and obvious. There is little of either in your premise.



                    Perhaps, you don't know the meaning of baiting?



                    Only if those things are asserted to be made or created by the vague and undefined.

    40. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Insults are always the rotort of the intellectually ill equipped.

      Most, who call themselves scientists and lefties, "Liberals". Don't have a clue as to how much the average American is on to them.

      We know the lies, and more of your understandings and conclusions have been, and are being proven false everyday.

      But instead of accepting this, and resolving the issue by use of honesty and integrity, and real science. They chose to call names and insult their opponents arguments, as though formulated and propagated by the village idiot.

      As if only the left and "scientists" have the intellectual capacity to understand the "deep ligic" and "observational reasonings" and "conclusions", they have undertaken and formed, and claim their own devine knowledge from.

      But you ask one to prove what he says and they all respond with attacks, personal and other-wise, and not evidence.

      Speaks for itself. Doesn't it?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it is hard for me to keep a logical mind when I see the hypocrisy and arrogance of some telling others of impossibilities as absolute when they can't rule them out. It is also ridiculous how many atheist and scientist claim logic over faith when it takes faith over logic to say the possibility of a maker or creation is irrational.

    41. Bovine Currency profile image61
      Bovine Currencyposted 6 years ago

      snore

    42. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Not all, but many of those who should be open minded above all else, are closed minded and blind to many of the realities they propose with their humanistic theories and equating of man to the animals and naturalism.

      They would not like it much, I expect, if everyone acted as animals. They think there is a lot of war and barbarism now,... try the "we are animals and there is NO GOD route, and see how law and order, and life goes.

      I bet they wouldn't like it.

      And don't fall for the bait, Marine. They will never answer, because they cannot defend their falacious and idiotic assumptions and positions. It just a bunch of guesses and propaganda, and they know it. I feel bad for the people who have been so immersed in this lie that they cannot see the truth. No matter the facts you show them.

      And I hope everyone is having a Merry Christmas.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is another aspect I do not understand is why many want to be on the same level as animals. We have the ability to use logic and reason while animals act on laws of nature not questioned by their "conscience". Our laws of nature are undefined and many scientist's try to define them as absolute, when absolutes are against most scientific thinking for not leaving any room for error. I agree, if we all acted as animals without conscious beliefs, I think chaos would be unlimited. You have an excellent Christmas as well TM!

    43. Bovine Currency profile image61
      Bovine Currencyposted 6 years ago

      But you only have one premise, right?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is actually a great question. If I did have only 1 premise, wouldn't it be more than those who believe creation is impossible since they can't rule creation out? I do have more than one premise, the separation of human mind and animal mind. Humans have the ability of rational thought and are dependent on belief while animals follow a course with possibly no need for belief. What is your belief and the premises of it?

    44. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Creator.--  The one who CREATED.

      ie; As in the "origin" of space/time and the reality of this universe we exist within, and the origin of this life we live. Not just the physical aspects, but the "Soul" or "Spiritual" aspects of it also.

      To answer the first, answers the second and third for many people. I would think that would be all they needed, or wanted. At least the Christians I know believe God created it, and that is good enough for them.

      And I say if God created that, the universe and space time as an ephemeral concept, to stir us to awareness so we would then live, and not just exist, then he in effect created us.

      I think that would work.

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who or what is the "one"?



        The origin of our universe is mere speculation at this point in time. The origin of life has evidence and is no longer just speculation.



        Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist and cannot be used within the definition of the universe.



        But, that isn't an answer, it's just an unfounded belief, and unfounded beliefs aren't good enough for the inquiring mind. As well, you still haven't defined the "one"



        It doesn't work at all, it's simply accepting magic and ignorance in the face of the unknown. Superstitions would then rule your worldview.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "I think you want me to list something that you can pick apart as irrational for being an assumption. How am I trying to bait someone for stating the logical and obvious? Are you sure you aren't the one baiting?"

    45. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      Q:  The origin of our universe is mere speculation at this point in time. The origin of life has evidence and is no longer just speculation.

      lol Everything is speculation depending on how much you believe it. The origin of life has no absolute for everyone, evidence or not. There are many things unexplained in the scientific theory or origin. To be facts, everything should be explained I believe.


      Q: Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist and cannot be used within the definition of the universe.


      How are you not limiting thought if you keep ruling things out? Do you limit your mind to science book definitions? You think because something hasn't been shown to exist means it will never be shown to exist? Is this logical thinking to you?

      1. 61
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Or, how much you understand it as opposed to belief.



        I think I just said that.



        There are a great deal of religious explanations to the origins of the universe.

         

        On behalf of the scientific community, I apologize in advance for not having all the answers readily available to the inquiring mind.

        Of course, one could simply hold tight to their local gospels if the need for affirmation is great. 




        With a little forethought and a few sprinkles of logic, you could easily answer those questions yourself. Oh well...

        1. Logic would dictate that if you don't rule out any one particular invisible and undetectable entity, you must include any and all invisible and undetectable entities that can be conjured from the imagination.

        2. As opposed to made up definitions?

        3. When you or anyone else can demonstrate their existence claims of those invisible and undetectable entities, we can then have the conversation of including them in our definitions of the universe. If you don't understand why, see answer to question 1.

        4. Logical thinking does not include wishy-washy hand-waving, making up definitions or excluding them altogether, withdrawing to mongering the mysterious, the magical, the myth or the  superstition. It is a system of reasoning.

     
    working