 |
| [original cartoon pending] |
CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Big Bang: Impenetrable Hurdle for Atheism." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 20XX. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!
M. Rasheed on BitChute!
**************************
Conscious - [MEME] "Go ahead and believe in God, if you like, but don't imagine that you have been given any grounds for such belief by science." ~Daniel Dennett
Muhammad Rasheed - The expanding universe evidence that supports Big Bang Theory is the first ground for believing in God that the Dennett meme denies. A material universe with a beginning aligns to the theist source text claims. Before the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, atheist scientists assumed the universe was static and eternal.
So, go ahead and not believe in God, if you like, but don't imagine that you have been given any grounds for such belief by science.
Dallas Graham - @Muhammad... the burden of proof lies with the believer in a God to provide evidence
Muhammad Rasheed - @Dallas... And the facts that support Big Bang Theory is one of those proofs.
Lazarus Gold - @Muhammad... no. They do not. Your claim that these things prove god exists has not ever been true. You do not correctly understand the big bang theory. And correlation is not causation. The fact that the universe as we know it appears to have an origin, that may or may not by part of a cycle of expansion and collapse that may have happened without end, in no way substantiates the claim the there is a god or any grand omnipotent sentience. Full stop. Please go re-examine what the meaning of the word proof is. And understand that the claim you are making has not only never been proved but all of the evidence we have on the nature of reality contradicts this claim. I know you want there to be a god, many people do, but it is a psychological response to the realization of ones own mortality, because you fear your own non existentence and the idea of a god who who lets you escape your inevitable demise is comforting. But it is only that, an idea to keep you comforted from the fact, that one day, you will not exist, and there is nothing you can do to change that. Accept it. That is the better answer. Your demand that we all believe in your fairy tale, is the single greatest source of human suffering. It is the evidence provided by an immature mind desperate to escape the terrible reality of our fleeting existence.
Muhammad Rasheed - Lazarus wrote: "no. They do not."
Of course they do. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points towards God's existence, and this was the number one in the list. The material universe has a beginning. The evidence demonstrates this. The is no evidence whatsoever that supports the "cycle of expansion and collapse" hypothesis, so there's no reason to even bring it up. What we know for sure based on the actually available evidence, is that the universe expanded from a single point that our physics explains was an impossible infinitely hot and infinitely dense—an impossibility represented by the term 'singularity' in this context. That very impossibility logically means it was the moment the universe appeared in existence from a mathematical NOTHING. Which means God made it, since the material cannot spring forth from NOTHING.
Lazarus wrote: "Accept it. That is the better answer. [...] an immature mind"
The evidence logically points towards God's existence. Your closed-mind stubbornly hides from logic & reason.
Lazarus Gold - the only mind that is closed is yours. Circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence. There is evidence that the big bang is part of a longer cycle, regardless of your ignorance of that evidence. You are going to not exist one day and no one will care. Enjoy your life now, its all you have. My mind is able to explore the possibility that God doez or does not exist, yours is not, who is more closed minded? You will not allow yourself to entertain the idea that God may not exists for only 1 reason. You are afraid of what it would mean if you did explore it and came to to understanding that God does not exist. That thought scares you, like a a child. Your mind is weak. Like many others. Weak and afraid of things it cannot control and therefore easily controlled by others. God is a tool of psychological warfare designed to keep you under control
Muhammad Rasheed - Lazarus wrote: "the only mind that is closed is yours"
Said the dude literally ignoring evidence to stubbornly hold onto a fake point.
Lazarus wrote: "Circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence"
You're literally making up nonsense.
Lazarus wrote: "There is evidence that the big bang is part of a longer cycle"
There is no evidence whatsoever for a "cycle of expansion and collapse" and all they have is speculation about it:
What Existed Before The Big Bang?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have no idea. We don't know for sure and we wouldn't even know how to experimentally verify our ideas."
Lazarus Gold - which nonsense am I making up? What evidence am I ignoring? Here's some papers pointing to the possibility of a cyclical universe Certainly!
1. "A Cyclic Model of the Universe"
This foundational paper introduces the concept of a universe undergoing endless cycles of expansion and contraction.
Read on arXiv
2. "Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe"
This paper elaborates on the cyclic model, discussing the mechanisms that allow the universe to transition between cycles.
Read on arXiv
3. "The Cyclic Model Simplified"
Here, the authors address common questions and criticisms, simplifying the understanding of the contraction phase in the cyclic model.
Read on arXiv
4. "The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction"
This informal introduction provides a conceptual overview of the cyclic model without heavy technical details.Now, Show me your evidence contradicting these ideas.
Muhammad Rasheed - These are all wishful speculation ideas about what they wish could be, not evidence.
Lazarus Gold - so you read them?
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm already familiar with the material.
Lazarus Gold - you are a liar. That much is plain. You have failed to prove anything except that you don't know what you are talking about. You are a scared human with a weak mind who does not have an objective grasp of reality. When you die, you will be just as afraid of your non existentence as you are now and always have been because of your failure to come to terms with it. In your last moments you will beg for a god to save you, and then you will cease to be, having spent your whole life failing to know what is and isn't real. I feel sorry for the religious, for you never truly grow beyond childhood. Whatever your reply is, will be meaningless, like all your other replies have been. Religion is for the stupid, God does not exist. If I am wrong, may the almighty smite me immediately. Seems like nothing is happening. And it won't. Have fun being just another delusional future corpse. No one is coming to save you. God never existed. I'm sure that hurts you to hear. I don't care. Your beliefe in God has caused more human suffering than my refusal to share your delusion ever has. Your beliefe in God, is the source of the majority of modern human cruelty. It's pathetic. And it's morally reprehensible.
Muhammad Rasheed - Lazarus wrote: "you are a liar"
lol The evidence that we actually have proves that the universe has a beginning. That means that God exists, because the material CANNOT invent itself from nothing.
There is no evidence whatsoever of a cyclic universe; the claims are only in the speculative hypothesis stage and nothing more. You're trying to use an unsupported wishful speculation to prove your point and getting upset because I don't care about your link list of speculations-without-proof.
Tim Terrell - @Muhammad... The Big Bang model neither states that the universe had a beginning or that it came from nothing. The Big Bang happened everywhere, not a single point. The description of the Big Bang as a singularity just describes a point where the math breaks down into an infinity. Singularities don’t exist in nature.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim wrote: "The Big Bang model neither states that the universe had a beginning"
Of course it does. lol
Tim wrote: "or that it came from nothing."
The 'singularity' represents a mathematical impossibility, which means that's the point the material universe came into existence.
Tim wrote: "The Big Bang happened everywhere, not a single point."
The expanding universe literally means it expanded from a single point of nigh-infinite heat and density.
Tim wrote: "The description of the Big Bang as a singularity just describes a point where the math breaks down into an infinity."
The singularity doesn't describe it, it's a place holder representing an impossibility.
Tim wrote: "Singularities don’t exist in nature."
It's literally impossible for the material universe to recede back into infinite heat and infinite density, therefore, that impossibly hot/dense state was the point in which the universe actually appeared.
Tim Terrell - The Big Bang singularity represents a point in spacetime where general relativity, a theory of gravity, breaks down. At this point, density, temperature, and curvature are considered infinite, and our current understanding of physics fails to describe the conditions. To explain the Big Bang singularity, a more complete theory that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics is needed, known as quantum gravity.
Tim Terrell - An Eternal Universe? w/ Brian Cox | YouTube Shorts
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim wrote: "To explain the Big Bang singularity, a more complete theory that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics is needed, known as quantum gravity."
lol Are you supposed to be pretending that 'quantum gravity' explains away the singularity at the beginning of the expanding material universe, or are you just throwing a word salad at me trying to see what sticks?
Tim Terrell - For you to say that the Big Bang happened at a single point shows you don’t follow cosmology at all.
Did The Big Bang Happen Everywhere At Once? The Physics Explained | Profound Physics
Tim Terrell - do you follow astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson? He has said that exact statement that you’re calling word salad.
Tim Terrell - Go ahead and link a single study showing the universe originated from a single point. I’ll wait.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim wrote: "He has said that exact statement"
I highly doubt that Tyson claimed that 'quantum gravity' solves the biggest mystery in astro-physics. lol
Tim Terrell - The singularity that began the Universe - Motivational Speech
Tim Terrell - Go ahead and link a single study showing the universe originated from a single point. I’ll wait.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim wrote: "Go ahead and link a single study showing the universe originated from a single point."
GOOGLE: does the cosmic microwave background radiation of the expanding universe mean that the universe began at a single tiny point?
AI Overview
Yes, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, combined with the observation of an expanding universe, is a strong piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe began from a very small, hot, and dense state.
Here's why:
Expansion of the Universe:
Hubble's Law, which shows that galaxies are moving away from each other and that the universe is expanding, is a key piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang.
CMB as Afterglow:
The CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang, often described as the "afterglow" of the early universe. It's the oldest light in the universe that we can observe.
Uniformity and Fluctuations:
The CMB is remarkably uniform, with very slight temperature fluctuations. These tiny variations are thought to represent the "seeds" of the structures that later formed into galaxies, clusters, and superclusters.
Big Bang Theory's Explanation:
The Big Bang theory explains the CMB as the cooled-down remnant of a hot, dense state, suggesting that the universe expanded and cooled over billions of years from that initial state.
Therefore, the CMB, along with the expansion of the universe, provides strong evidence that the universe began from a very small, dense, and hot state, which is the essence of the Big Bang theory.
SOURCE:
The Universe – WJEC: Cosmic microwave background radiation | BBC Bitesize
The Universe - Edexcel: Theories of the Universe | BBC Bitesize
Daniel Todd - @Muhammad... your an expert now? Hahahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - @Daniel... *You're
Daniel Todd - answer the question.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol Do you think I work for you or something?
I answered your question the way it deserved to be answered—by pointing out your weakness.
Daniel Todd - since when does asking a simple question mean you work for me? I asked are you an expert?....
Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel wrote: "since when does asking a simple question"
"Answer the question" is not a question, son. You're terrible at this. English isn't your first language, is it? What do you speak? French?
Daniel Todd - if your going to quote me, use the entire sentence. Do you know what this is > "?".... what do you think it means? 🤔 again, are you an expert?
Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel wrote: "if your going to quote me, use the entire sentence"
You still think I work for you for some odd reason. I'll actually respond however way I feel like, bud. You appear to live in a bubble of pure delusion.
Daniel wrote: "Do you know what this is > "?".... what do you think it means? 🤔"
Irrelevant, since you didn't use a question mark when you tried to boss me around posting, "answer the question." exactly like that. lol Do you think a period is the same as a question mark then? You're very clownish.
Scott Nowlan - @Muhammad... Wrong. Pure speculation based on belief not fact. Your beliefs have no basis in objective fact.
Muhammad Rasheed - Scott wrote: "Wrong."
I'm actually very right. Your response is emotion based.
Scott Nowlan - Nah. Science trumps your beliefs. Dunning Kruger symptoms much?
Muhammad Rasheed - Scott wrote: "Science trumps your beliefs"
Modern science actually supports my beliefs.
Scott Nowlan - Not all. Your interpretation of science is an act of pseudo science at best.
Muhammad Rasheed - Your interpretation of science is delusional. No one is more narrow-minded and foolish than the atheist.
Scott Nowlan - You have zero basis in science for your belief. Inserting nonsense where there literally is no objective fact.
Atheists don’t. They don’t need predetermined beliefs from the imaginations of men.
Muhammad Rasheed - Scott wrote: "You have zero basis in science for your belief"
Meanwhile, I carefully explained that very basis you claimed I didn't have, which demonstrates how the atheist mind works.
Scott wrote: "Inserting nonsense"
The only nonsense is your rejecting clear reason & logic in front of your face because of your insistence upon holding onto your pet willful ignorance.
Scott wrote: "where there literally is no objective fact."
The objective fact is that the material universe cannot create itself from nothing, and must have an Immaterial, Necessary First Cause to initiate it.
Tim Terrell - @Muhammad... There was never a period of nothing. Quantum field theory describes fundamental quantum fields as the underlying reality, not just a description of existing particles. QFT suggests that these fields are always present, even in their lowest energy state, and manifest as particles when energy is added or they are excited. Fundamental quantum fields don't have a separate origin or creation event. They are part of the fabric of reality from which everything else arises. That’s not nothing.
Tim Terrell - Linear-cause-and-affect doesn’t apply to quantum systems. Quantum systems can exist in multiple states at once and are fundamentally governed by probability.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim wrote: "There was never a period of nothing"
I know. God always existed as He is Eternal. It is He who initiated the material universe, since it's literally impossible for the material to spring forth from nothing.
Devin Bret - @Muhammad... show me where anyone believed the universe is static and eternal. Science didn't make any such claim. Science only claims what it has evidence for. You're trying to improve a belief and that is wrong. And whatever your you know intellectuals rant is implying it's not evidence for any God created by man or any religion created by man.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "show me where anyone believed the universe is static and eternal"
Here ya go:
GOOGLE: did atheist scientists used to believe the universe was static and eternal before the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered?
AI Overview
Yes, prior to the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, some atheistic scientists, like Fred Hoyle, did support the Steady State theory, which proposed an eternally expanding and static universe. This theory was an alternative to the Big Bang theory, which suggested the universe had a beginning. However, the discovery of the CMB in 1965, providing evidence of a hot, dense early universe, significantly weakened the Steady State theory and solidified support for the Big Bang model.
Devin Bret - first of all your first fallacy is that it was an atheist belief. I believe that to be an intentional lie.
Only about half the scientific community adhered to this and it wasn't just atheists.
The religious community has a harder time with the big bang.
There is no scientific evidence for your God. You can't get around the fact that that is a belief and there's certainly no evidence for any particular God.
"The Steady-State Theory was initially a very popular alternative to the Big Bang theory, gaining support from around half of the scientific community, particularly in the 1950s. However, its popularity declined as evidence began to accumulate against it. Today, the Big Bang theory is the dominant cosmological model, with the Steady-State Theory being largely rejected.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Initial Popularity:
In the 1940s and 1950s, the Steady-State Theory was a strong contender to the Big Bang theory. It proposed a universe that is always expanding but maintains a constant average density, with matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies.
Evidence Against:
In the 1950s and 1960s, several pieces of evidence emerged that contradicted the Steady-State Theory.
Radio Sources: Observations using radio telescopes revealed more distant radio sources than predicted by the Steady-State Theory, suggesting the universe was different in the past.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: In 1964, the discovery of the CMB radiation, a faint afterglow of the Big Bang, was a major blow to the Steady-State Theory. This radiation was not predicted by the Steady-State model."
"No, it wasn't only atheist scientists who believed in the steady-state theory. While some prominent proponents of the theory, like Fred Hoyle, were atheists, others, like Sir Hermann Bondi, were known to be less aligned with atheism. Moreover, the theory itself didn't inherently clash with religious beliefs in the same way the Big Bang theory, which implied a beginning to the universe, did.
Elaboration:
Fred Hoyle's Atheism and the Steady-State Theory:
Fred Hoyle, a key figure in the development of the steady-state theory, was an atheist. He believed that the universe was in a steady state, continuously expanding but remaining the same in overall density. This view, as he saw it, avoided the implication of a beginning to the universe, which he linked to the notion of a creator.
Sir Hermann Bondi and the Steady-State Theory:
Sir Hermann Bondi, another prominent figure in the development of the steady-state theory, is described as "less aligned with atheism". This suggests that his personal religious views were not as strong as those of some other atheists who supported the steady-state theory.
The Steady-State Theory and Religious Beliefs:
The steady-state theory, unlike the Big Bang theory, didn't explicitly posit a creation event. This meant that it was not as immediately in conflict with religious beliefs that involved creation narratives.
The Big Bang Theory and Religious Beliefs:
The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, suggested a beginning to the universe, which some interpreted as implying a creator. This led to discussions about the relationship between science and religion. "
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "first of all your first fallacy is that it was an atheist belief. I believe that to be an intentional lie."
Atheists invented the "static/eternal universe" hypothesis because they assumed the finite universe with a beginning described in Abrahamic theist sacred texts was a fiction.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "There is no scientific evidence for your God"
Meanwhile, the more we learn in science, the greater the pile of circumstantial evidence that proves God's existence.
The three biggest points are as follows:
• The origin of the material universe
• The impossibility of the material inventing itself from nothing
• The Great Flood near extinction event
ONE:
• Science facts support the Creation Model of an expanding material universe with a beginning (Big Bang Theory). The theist texts said upfront that the universe has a beginning and was right all along.
TWO:
• Because science facts support the Creation Model of an expanding material universe with a beginning, logic dictates there must be an Eternal, Necessary, Immaterial Initiator that Caused that material universe to appear from nothing (Kurt Gödel’s mathematical proof for the existence of God).
THREE:
• Science supports the Great Flood near-human extinction event (Younger Dryas Impact theory). For decades, the atheist scientists assumed wasn't real for no other reason than because the theist texts said it was real.
Devin Bret - no there is absolutely no scientific evidence for a flood that flooded the whole world that is absolute nonsense.
Story of Noah was told orally through generations and generations and was taken from Mesopotamian mythology.
There's no such thing as atheist science.
Atheist are your Boogeyman.
You went quickly from pseudo intellectual nonsense to absolute unabashed nonsense.
Tell me how did those people in Judea & the general area have any idea the whole world flooded? They didn't know about 99% of the world existed. Did they get it on the news that America was flooding?
Also there's not enough water to flood the Earth no less in 40 days.
There's no evidence that everybody on the earth drowned except a few people in a local area near Judea.
It's a local mythology and nothing more.
Yes there are other flood mythologies because everywhere in the world has floods.
There's other creation stories around the world because humans all want to know where they came from what are we doing here.
It's all part of the human condicondition share that same human condition.
I mean to suggest that everybody on Earth died 11,000 years ago except for the survivors from Noah's ark is laughably stupid.
All the diversity all around the Earth all came from the same language group and the same people? All the different cultural and language variations all the variations of homo sapiens all came from one small group 11,000 years ago?
You can't be expected to be taken seriously when you're pushing the great flood nonsense.
Devin Bret - you provide no science for any of that. You're outright lying. The more you read in science the more confirmation bias you experience and the more you cherry pick what fits your narrative.
Muhammad Rasheed - The Story of Noah tells of a near-human extinction level event that devastated the planet. The Younger Dryas was that exact event that lasted for 1,300-years and continued residual destructive events for centuries afterwards.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "you provide no science for any of that"
Big Bang = science
Younger Dryas = science
Gödel’s math proof = science
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "You can't be expected to be taken seriously when you're pushing the great flood nonsense"
This is the exact type of close-mindedness and anti-intellectualism that trolling atheists are known for.
Devin Bret - who said I was an atheist? You keep thinking everybody who disagrees with you is an atheist.
Not believing in a worldwide flood is intellectual.
There is no intellectual argument for a worldwide flood that killed everybody but a few people on a boat.
Now you're getting manipulative.
There are currently 6,500 species of mammal you think they are all descended from the animals that somebody who had no idea about the size of the Earth or any knowledge of the geology of the earth managed to get two of each on a boat?
And you're accusing me of anti-intellectualism?
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "who said I was an atheist?"
You' re arguing the atheist's position. #IfItQuacksLikeADuck
Devin Bret - there's absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood. Saying there's scientific evidence for it is lying.
Any idea how many fossils of people we would find if 5 million people died of drowning in a 40-day period?
How do you explain the diversity among Homo sapiens in physical appearance, languages and cultures if we all descended and somehow dispersed all over the Earth from a small region in Judea? It's nonsensical but go ahead and try to explain it in scientific terms.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "there's absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood"
see: The Younger Dryas. lol
Devin Bret - I'm very familiar with it Muhammad. That's not evidence for Noah's flood. You saying their scientific evidence from that period is still a lie
Claiming I'm the one being anti-intellectual enclosed-minded is flat out manipulative bullshit.
You're acting like a stereotypical used car salesman on the matter.
There is no evidence of a worldwide flood 11,000 years ago. There's evidence of lots of flooding certain regions the claiming there was a worldwide vent that killed all but 30 people is absolute nonsense.
You're trying to manipulate the science to fit your theology. You can't do it without lying and your whole rant is testimony for that.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "You keep thinking everybody who disagrees with you is an atheist."
It's reasonable to assume that all those arguing the atheist position in the same way the atheists argue it, would be atheists. #ThenItMustBeADuck
Devin wrote: "Not believing in a worldwide flood is intellectual."
Ignoring the evidence and assuming it doesn't exist because of your close-minded biases is anti-intellectualism.
Devin wrote: "There is no intellectual argument for a worldwide flood that killed everybody but a few people on a boat."
The evidence shows that there were many "boats" and many "Noah's" all around the world. The biblical Noah figure was an archetype.
Devin wrote: "Now you're getting manipulative."
I don't care what you think about anything.
Devin wrote: "There are currently 6,500 species of mammal you think they are all descended from the animals that somebody who had no idea about the size of the Earth or any knowledge of the geology of the earth managed to get two of each on a boat?"
The Noah figure was an archetype.
Devin wrote: "And you're accusing me of anti-intellectualism?"
Yup. You love it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "I'm very familiar with it Muhammad"
You might have broke down and managed to skim a little of it over the last 10-minutes or so.
Devin wrote: "That's not evidence for Noah's flood"
Sure, it is.
Devin wrote: "You saying their scientific evidence from that period is still a lie [...] Claiming I'm the one being anti-intellectual enclosed-minded is flat out manipulative bullshit."
You're not a smart person. You're stubborn and close-minded like the vast majority of atheists.
Devin Bret - you don't believe in Hinduism does that make you an atheist?
Saying there's no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood is not an atheist position it's a scientific fact. You are lying.
Science is not on your side and the fact that you keep saying that says you're a liar.
Saying there is no evidence for a worldwide flood that killed millions of people is scientific.
Claiming there was a worldwide flood that fits the Noah story is theology not science.
You're being disingenuous at best but I prefer to say you're lying because you are.
All this time and you still haven't shown any evidence. Your claim is theological. Turning mythology into a real event and you still haven't provide any evidence for it. You're trying to use mythology as an evidence that a literal God punish the world. There's no evidence of millions of people dying from a flood no less because a God got upset. None.
Tying to turn mythological stories and archetypes into a literal fact is nonsense.
People try to turn Adam and Eve into a literal story. And it's nonsense.
They are metaphors. Turning them into literal stories to fit your belief in a literal God is dishonest at best.
Australia never flooded. Human beings have been in Australia for at least 65,000 years.
Native Americans have been in the Americas for 30,000 years at minimum.
All these events including the end of the last epoch that created say the Great lakes took a matter of thousands of years not 40 days.
Again there is not enough water on Earth to flood the whole Earth. You will provide no scientific evidence that the whole world flooded all at once. Because it doesn't exist that's why.
Devin Bret - it might be evidence of a local flood that happened in the early Mesopotamian period but it's not evidence for a worldwide flood. the story of Noah is a local mythology nothing more. Then believing the reasons having to do with a vengeful God is a local belief system.
There is no scientific evidence for any of the gods imagined in that time period. They had no scientific evidence for anything so everything they didn't understand was a god. They didn't know what the heart was for they didn't know what blood was they didn't know why there was floods they didn't know what the moon was they didn't know anything about the natural world so everything got ascribed to some God.
Devin Bret - you need to look at yourself. There's nobody more stubborn than somebody who thinks there is a God on their side and they are speaking on behalf of said God. You don't even have the courage to call it faith and treat it as faith you keep wanting to claim their scientific evidence that proves God and that's extraordinarily dishonest. "God" is a metaphor for that which is beyond our understanding. That's why we use metaphors to understand the world around us that goes beyond our our understanding of our natural world and ourselves. By definition you can't turn it into a literal thought.
Devin Bret - at least tell me you're not a young Earth creationist?
You're trying to make thought and science do that which it cannot do.
Devin Bret - all that talking and you still haven't shown any scientific evidence for anything. You're taking a scientific period and trying to claim it's evidence for some God who was upset at human beings so he killed all of them but a few. You can't provide scientific evidence for that.
And there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood. There was no worldwide flood during that time period. There's not enough water on or in Earth for worldwide flood.
"Science does not support the idea of a worldwide flood that submerged the entire Earth, as described in the Bible. While floods can occur on a large scale, covering vast areas, a truly global flood is not supported by geological evidence, physical limitations of Earth's water, and the sheer number of species that would be required to survive such an event.
Elaboration:
Insufficient Water:
There is not enough water on Earth to cover all the continents and highest mountains, even with the melting of all glaciers and ice caps.
Geological Evidence:
Geological formations and fossil records don't show evidence of a uniform, global flood covering the entire Earth.
Species Survival:
It's highly unlikely that all species could survive being reduced to just two individuals per species, as described in the biblical story.
No Evidence of Global Flood Layers:
Geological strata and fossils found in the world's highest mountains and elevated plateaus do not indicate a global flood, according to The Institute for Creation Research.
Alternative Explanations:
Some scientists propose theories like the melting of a 3-mile-wide comet, tidal activity, or dam failures as possible explanations for regional floods.
Regional Flooding is More Likely:
Scientists believe that the flood depicted in the Bible was likely a regional flood, perhaps a catastrophic deluge in Mesopotamia. X"
Devin Bret - you'll find no geology anthropology course anywhere in the world that teaches there was a worldwide event and all our languages stemmed from one small group of people. You'll find no geology class that tells you there was a worldwide flood.
Suppose you believe that every scientist who teaches geology is an atheist?
That's ridiculous as well.
Science is not teach what you believe because it's a belief not a fact.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "all that talking and you still haven't shown any scientific evidence for anything"
I did, but atheists are narrow-minded and dumb and incapable of processing complex info.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "a worldwide flood that submerged the entire Earth, as described in the Bible"
The bible is not supposed to be taken literally, word-by-word. That's why I pointedly said that the Story of Noah was about a near-human extinction event that The Younger Dryas represents. So, you are disingenuous AND close-minded and dumb.
Devin Bret - there was no near Extinction event during that time period. You can't make up your mind what you're trying to say. There was no near Extinction event 12,000 years ago, 11,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago.... Noah is a local mythology and it was most likely it flood in the Tigris Euphrates had nothing to do with any other part of the Earth. It's local mythology. Having a flood is one thing believing it was the wrath of some God who wanted to kill off a bunch of people because he was mad is mythology. That was the story the people there told themselves because they didn't understand why they were floods. They didn't know a damn thing about glaciers melting.
You started off this nonsense with bullshit about gravity not being real and only being an idea. And you're calling me dumb?
You were implying the Earth is flat.
Devin Bret - I'm not dumb you're simply arrogant.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "I'm not dumb"
Should I be surprised that you don't know what dumb means either?
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "there was no near Extinction event during that time period"
Of course there was. Cultures all over the globe hold memories of the previous thriving ancestors who were nearly wiped out during that time period and had to rebuild civilization again.
Devin Bret - all you're doing is admitting you've lost the argument. you're lying about science and you're lying about mythology. Your ego was bruised because you thought you had it all figured out that you had a proof for God. You don't.
You don't have any evidence of any boats carrying any people or any animals because of some big flood. Zip, zero.
It's not my fault you can't prove there was a near Extinction event. You made that up.
There is no evidence geologically or otherwise of any of that.
Don't get mad at me because you can't provide evidence for your own crazy ideas.
Humans have been spacewalking since 1965 and 12 different countries have had astronauts walk in space.
GPS satellites that help you get around or 12,000 miles above the globe and all around it. These are verifiable facts.
A scientific theory is not an idea which is what you're implying gravity is. Scientific theory is created by layers and layers of factual information that's been tested and retested. Both evolution and gravity are scientific theories and facts.
We know for a fact the Earth is not flat.
There is no scientific evidence of any near Extinction event of human beings because of rain.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "You started off this nonsense with bullshit about gravity not being real"
You're too close-minded, cowardly and dumb to address my actual points. You have to make something up to pretend to be smart in your strawman fallacy snark. Typical of the atheist.
Devin wrote: "You were implying the Earth is flat."
And you did it twice. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "all you're doing is admitting you've lost the argument"
Meanwhile, I've ran circles around you, piggy, but you lack integrity and can't admit you don't know anything.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "We know for a fact the Earth is not flat"
So?
You can't address my actual points so you want to splash in the mud and pretend you're addressing my points, huh? You're a pig.
Devin Bret - you haven't provided evidence for anything Muhammad. Most Muslims modern day understand the Earth is a sphere. You're still living in the 8th century apparently. You claiming you ran circles around me is a function of your arrogance. That's nothing but arrogance. The whole way you presented yourself initially was nothing but arrogance. You called people you don't know liars you called hundreds and thousands of people liars... Pretty sure bearing false witness is a sin in Islam too. You haven't outsmarted all the universities in the world or all the scientists from the last 60 years. I don't know why you'd be surprised by that but you haven't outsmarted anybody. Right now you're claiming you've outsmarted all of science. Honestly I don't think you're very familiar with science. Clearly you didn't go to cass tech. You just Cherry picked a few things and put a story around it. It's a fiction nothing more.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "It's not my fault you can't prove there was a near Extinction event. You made that up."
You just have your fingers in your ears and have a mind slammed shut like a steel trap, like the typical atheist. Humans experienced significant decline in our populations during the The Younger Dryas and the survivors were forced to move in major migrations.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "The whole way you presented yourself initially was nothing but arrogance."
I'm smarter than you, piggy. That's all. People like you interpret that as "arrogance" because you thought all the fat in your head gave you some kind of magical edge, but that's not how intelligence works. lol
Devin wrote: "Right now you're claiming you've outsmarted all of science"
What the heck would a character like you know about science to even make such a wise crack?
Devin Bret - by the way pig is delicious and the fact that certain religions don't eat it because they listen 2000 year old mythology is rather silly.
The fact that you're trying to insult me tells me you surrendered.
The geological events and the climate change and the glaciers melting over a 1200 year period ending 11,700 years
has nothing to do with any God.
It has nothing to do with the Noah story.
You seem to be afraid of saying it but there was no vengeful God that flooded the Earth or caused the geological events 12,000 years ago. That is man-made mythology and you won't provide any evidence otherwise.
Again I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. You absolutely have no evidence of a bunch of boats because of some worldwide catastrophe that never happened.
"Human ancestors likely experienced a near-extinction event around 900,000 years ago, when their population dwindled to a very small number of breeding individuals, potentially as low as 1,280. This population bottleneck lasted for about 117,000 years.
Elaboration:
Population Bottleneck:
This period of extremely low population size is referred to as a population bottleneck, where the genetic diversity of the species is severely reduced.
Timing:
The bottleneck occurred around 930,000 to 813,000 years ago, according to a study published in Science. "
Sorry nobody remembers 900,000 years ago.
Also Bruce McCandless was in fact the first man to walk in space untethered.
12 men have walked on the moon. The evidence is so overwhelming we call it reality.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "by the way pig is delicious"
So? 🤨
Devin wrote: "and the fact that certain religions don't eat it because they listen 2000 year old mythology is rather silly."
We don't eat it because the One Who made the beast said it was not designed for human consumption and forbade us to eat it because to do so is disgusting.
Devin wrote: "The fact that you're trying to insult me tells me you surrendered."
I made my points. You stuck your fingers in your ears and yelled to drown me out. I closed my argument. You called me a liar and opened the door to insult. Now you're trying on your victimhood coat to see how it fits (see: Chris Farley in the little sports jacket).
Devin wrote: "has nothing to do with any God. It has nothing to do with the Noah story."
The global cataclysm that God said happened is matched exactly by The Younger Dryas event.
Devin wrote: "You seem to be afraid of saying it but"
That makes zero sense considering we agree on nothing and I think you are a legitimate fool.
Devin wrote: "Again I'm not even sure what you're trying to say"
You're a close-minded fool resistant to new information, so that tracks.
Devin wrote: "Also Bruce McCandless was in fact the first man to walk in space untethered. 12 men have walked on the moon."
What did this have to do with anything we were talking about?
Devin wrote: "The evidence is so overwhelming we call it reality."
Hilarious considering you live in your own personal pocket universe of foolishness.
Devin Bret - but pig is not disgusting. It's just as healthy as beef if not more healthy in certain contexts.
No God told you not to eat pig. Those were the beliefs of human beings at that time period saw pigs eating everything and anything.
You were lying. You still haven't provided any evidence of anything. You simply been arrogant. You want your word to be taken as some sort of gospel it's very bizarre.
There was no global cataclysm. It did not rain for 40 days straight. It didn't rain for a hundred days straight. The events you brought up took place over a 1200 year. 12,000 years ago. Nobody in Judea knew anything about those things. No God told human beings he was unhappy with them and so he caused a "cataclysm". That never happened. Human beings all over the world make up mythologies and stories to explain the world but they don't come from God's it's just our best understanding at the time.
You have no scientific evidence for anything you've said. You're trying to pass off your understanding of science as religion and somehow beyond repute. Your arrogance is getting mad at me because I refute it. It's almost like you're accusing me of blasphemy because I disagree with your nonsense.
That's how the conversation started was regarding a man walking in space. You said it was fake. Then you try to imply it gravity was just an idea! It's a scientific fact.
You said because you're not walking upside down. That's just a gross misunderstanding of science.
You can't back up a word you said including saying that the Bruce McCandless tetherless spacewalk was fake. You can't provide any evidence that the Earth is flat.
You can't provide any evidence that gravity is in mere idea and not a scientific fact.
You can't claim Noah came from an event 11,700 years ago. It came from Mesopotamia sometime after 3,500 BC. Thousands of year after the younger dryas events that lasted 1200 years. Human memory does not go back 12,000 years ago.
You have offered no science whatsoever.
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "but pig is not disgusting. It's just as healthy as beef if not more healthy in certain contexts."
You have no idea what you are talking about. You're ranting from emotion.
Devin Bret - you're attempting to gaslight and it looks silly.
"Yes, lean pork can be just as healthy as lean beef and chicken. In fact, some studies suggest that substituting lean pork for beef or chicken can lead to better heart health and reduced body fat. WebMD notes that lean pork is a good source of protein and nutrients. WebMD also points out that pork tenderloin is comparable to skinless chicken breast in terms of leanness.
Here's why lean pork is a healthy option:
Lean options are available:
Pork tenderloin is a lean and flavorful cut, and many other pork cuts can be enjoyed in moderation.
Similar nutrient profile to chicken:
Pork is a good source of protein, essential nutrients like niacin and selenium, and it can be a good addition to a healthy diet.
Potential benefits of substituting pork:
Some studies have shown that substituting lean pork for other meats can be beneficial for heart health and may help with weight management.
Moderation is key:
While pork can be a healthy part of a balanced diet, excessive consumption, especially of processed pork products, can be associated with increased risks of certain conditions. "
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "you're attempting to gaslight and it looks silly."
lol I'm not gaslighting, you're just naive, gullible and dumb:
GOOGLE: is there a large association that looks out for the financial and business interests of pork ranchers?
AI Overview
Yes, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is a large association that advocates for the financial and business interests of pork ranchers in the United States. NPPC represents U.S. pork producers and works to ensure the industry's sustainability and access to global markets. Wikipedia says NPPC is a trade association that lobbies on behalf of its affiliated state associations.
Advocacy:
NPPC advocates for policies that support the pork industry, including trade agreements and public funding for research and development.
State Associations:
NPPC is comprised of 42 affiliated state pork producer associations, which helps it represent a wide range of perspectives within the industry.
Global Voice:
NPPC acts as the "global voice" for the U.S. pork industry, promoting the industry's interests on a worldwide scale.
Of course they are going to grease the palms of folks like WebMD to keep from telling the truth about swine flesh. lol
___________________________
GOOGLE: Does pork contain a lot of parasites?
The major meatborne parasites include the protozoa Toxoplasma gondii and Sarcocystis spp., and the helminths Trichinella spp. and Taenia spp. Interestingly, although consumption of other meat types may be a transmission route for some of these parasites, only pork can be a source of all four. ~Pork as a source of human parasitic infection - ScienceDirect
Trichinellosis, more commonly known as trichinosis, is a parasitic food-borne disease that is caused by eating raw or undercooked meats, particularly pork products infested with the larvae of a type of roundworm called Trichinella.
GOOGLE: does eating pork contain a high risk of parasitic worms?
AI Overview
Yes, eating raw or undercooked pork can pose a risk of parasitic worm infections, such as trichinellosis (caused by the Trichinella roundworm). While trichinellosis is the most commonly known parasite associated with pork, other parasites like tapeworm larvae (Taenia solium) and Toxoplasma gondii can also be transmitted through raw or undercooked pork.
Devin Bret - you can get sick from eating undercooked beef and chicken as well. You are incapable of being honest about anything.
You have provided no scientific evidence for anything you've said. No God ever told you not to eat pork. That was humans so you're basing your diet on the beliefs of people from 2200 years ago.
It all says raw or undercooked.
You're just saying the obvious about any fucking meat.
"Yes, chickens can be infected with parasites.
Common parasites in chickens include:
Roundworms (Ascaridia galli): These large, white worms live in the intestines.
Cecal worms (Heterakis gallinarum): Smaller worms that live in the cecum, a pouch in the lower intestine.
Tapeworms (Raillietina tetragona): Flat, segmented worms that attach to the intestines.
Coccidia: Microscopic protozoa that live in the intestines and cause bloody diarrhea.
Northern fowl mites: Tiny, red mites that live on the chicken's skin and cause irritation and feather loss. X
Muhammad Rasheed - Devin wrote: "you can get sick from eating undercooked beef and chicken as well"
ScienceDirect: "Interestingly, although consumption of other meat types may be a transmission route for some of these parasites, only pork can be a source of all four."
You like being dumb. I can feel it through the screen.
George McDade - @Muhammad... all the big bang theory proves is the local universe began to expand at some point. I quite literally doesn't matter what scientists thought before because science is the process of discovering what is true as opposed to religion which just says 'this is the truth" and you're not allowed to question it.
Muhammad Rasheed - George wrote: "all the big bang theory proves is the local universe began to expand at some point."
It proves that the universe was impossibly hot & dense in the beginning and exploded into its current, ever-expanding state. The mathematics of its original state align to the Abrahamic theist concept of a created universe.
George wrote: "I quite literally doesn't matter what scientists thought before"
It matters WHY they thought the way they thought about it. In this case, it's because they incorrectly assumed the claims of the theist sacred texts were fictional and deserved contempt and dismissal. In other words, they were as close-minded and biased as your own worthless hate troll clique.
George wrote: "because science is the process of discovering what is true"
That's why the atheist scientists who take a biased, close-minded, hate troll position embarrass themselves.
George wrote: "as opposed to religion which just says 'this is the truth'"
When did religion ever pretend to be a branch of science? They have two different functions and roles, yet the narrow-minded faults religion for not acting more like something it isn't. This is foolishness, which means the atheist lacks a mind for science or critical thought when your default is to dismiss something without investigation through willfully ignorant bias.
George wrote: "and you're not allowed to question it."
Says who? Another ignorant atheist you are blindly parroting? lol Even in Christianity, the last time a believer was "not allowed to question" something was when the Inquisition would disembowel you as a heretic for purely political reasons. That was many centuries ago. Perhaps it's time for you to update your stupid atheist rhetoric?
George McDade - the expansionary theory of the universe which is what in layman's terms is the big bang never at any point says that there was an explosion
I'm not wasting time refuting the rest because you don't know what you are talking about.
And the Abrahamic belief was never that there was an explosion and the universe started to explain the god of the old testament created the universe as it was and it says the earth was created before the sun (not observed reality)
Your book is not science and will never align with observation.
Have the courage to say that you believe in the bible story in spite of the overwhelming evidence
Muhammad Rasheed - George wrote: "never at any point says that there was an explosion"
What other term describes a rapid expansion of energy?
George wrote: "I'm not wasting time refuting the rest because you don't know what you are talking about."
Said the idiot who doesn't know what an explosion is...
George wrote: "And the Abrahamic belief was never that there was an explosion"
In Genesis, it says God said "Let there be light." I'm confident light came out of the Big Bang explosion, idiot.
George wrote: "the god of the old testament created the universe as it was and it says the earth was created before the sun (not observed reality)"
Irrelevant. The bible isn't the only Abrahamic belief sacred text that describes the creation of the universe.
George wrote: "Your book is not science"
It's not supposed to be, nor did I claim it was. Your comment is idiotic.
George wrote: "and will never align with observation."
You're very emotional and silly. The Abrahamic sacred texts said the universe had a beginning, and we can observe the early universe using infrared telescope tech.
George wrote: "Have the courage to say that you believe in the bible"
You can tell by my name that I don't believe in the bible. Why are you so dumb?
George Mcdade - an explosion is a localized event involving the rapid release of energy (required something to explode to release energy)
expansion of the universe is a continuous and uniform growth of space itself on a cosmological scale (energy is not released)
You are not scientific literature enough to know the difference so you have to resort to name call
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So again you believe the earth was created before the big bang
And people called Muhammad can't believe the same thing as Christians so genius is out then
And the Koran is even more scientific illiterate that the bible is
Muhammad Rasheed - George wrote: "an explosion is a localized event"
The tiny universe exploding was that localized event obviously.
George wrote: "involving the rapid release of energy (required something to explode to release energy)"
The universe itself was that something. Obviously.
George wrote: "expansion of the universe is a continuous and uniform growth of space itself on a cosmological scale (energy is not released)"
That's what the original explosion became as it cooled and continued to expand.
George wrote: "You are not scientific literature enough"
You have a poor grasp of the English language.
George wrote: "to know the difference so you have to resort to name call"
You invite name-calling by confidently proclaiming foolishness.
George wrote: "So again you believe the earth was created before the big bang"
I do not have to accept the mistakes the corrupt Pharisees inserted into the text because the bible is not my religion's sacred text. My earlier hint went over your head because you are not a smart person.
George wrote: "And people called Muhammad can't believe the same thing as Christians so genius is out then"
I believe that Jesus Christ was conceived miraculously without the aid of an earthly father as confirmed in the Qur'an. I'm confident the Christian also believes this about Jesus. Notice that every time you attempt to project something at me for your willfully ignorant and uninformed position, you look more and more like a fool? Do you know anything at all? You seem very stupid.
George wrote: "And the Koran is even more scientific illiterate that the bible is"
So far in this thread, you haven't been correct about anything whatsoever. Why would you attempt to challenge me on a Book we both know you have never read/studied? Seriously, you should shut up.
George McDade - still not what an explosion is you are still wrong
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I'm not wrong at all, you're just silly & stubborn, and committed to making up fake definitions to pretend you are right.
George McDade - I made up nothing your book did
Energy expansion in an empty void does not in any definition constitute an explosion.
Even if there was one that still wouldn't line up with the with let's be clear the Jewish creation story not the Abrahamic story because it per dates the monotheistic Abrahamic religion of the jews
Muhammad Rasheed - George wrote: "I made up nothing"
You made up the clear nonsense that "people named Muhammad" don't believe anything that Christians believe. When I proved you wrong, you sat there blinking and looking stupid.
George wrote: "your book did"
You have no idea what my Book says, fool.
George wrote: "Energy expansion in an empty void does not in any definition constitute an explosion."
You only think that because you are not smart.
James Baker - @Muhammad... The all powerful god is not even able to buy a postage stamp to mail a letter he also needs your money even tho he’s supposedly all powerful. The biggest con ever perpetuated on the human species to control humanity.
Muhammad Rasheed - James wrote: "The all powerful god is not even able to buy a postage stamp to mail a letter"
He created reality. Somehow that's not impressive to you?
James Baker - prove it with facts
Muhammad Rasheed - The fact is, atheist scientists used to believe the material universe was static and eternal for no other reason than because the Abrahamic theist texts said it had a beginning. Then the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, showing that the universe expanded from a beginning point.
theist - 1
atheist - 0
Alan Sheridan - @Muhammad... and then they proved otherwise and realised they were not playing an us vs them game to score points at which point they grew up.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Alan... lol Typical. When you realize you lost the battle, then you claim that it was never a contest. hahaha #Fake
Alan Sheridan - you're fighting a battle all on your own, I hope you win and good luck.
Muhammad Rasheed - Alan wrote: "you're fighting a battle all on your own"
lol Clearly not true considering all the faux-confident anti-God/anti-theism snark that exists from your team—including the Daniel Dennett meme itself you are posting under. hahahaha #AtheistsLackIntegrity
Sabian Cole - @Muhammad... incorrect. All that science can show is that 14b years ago the universe was incredibly hot and dense and then it expanded. Thats it. No one knows how long it was in that Hot and dense state for. No one knows how it got into that Hot and dense state. No one knows why it expanded. No one knows if it hasn't already done this a million times before as a part of some larger system we can't even measure yet. Anyone that says they do know, is either lying or speculating. Your quote // aligns to the theist source text claims //. No, it absolutely doesn't. Theist source text claims that a God or Gods (depending on the text) created the universe from nothing. The BBT does not propose something from nothing. The BBT proposes that everything that contains everything expanded in all directions all at once. And it backs that proposal with Evidences. There is no god claim that does this.
Muhammad Rasheed - Sabian wrote: "All that science can show is that 14b years ago the universe was incredibly hot and dense and then it expanded. Thats it."
That's "all we know" if we purposely ignore the other clues. For example, the fact that scientists say there's a singularity at the beginning of the early universe that prevents us from knowing the origin of the Big Bang is pregnant with information. Curiously, you conspicuously ignored that very interesting fact to proclaim that we know nothing at all except for the parts that are easier to know. That means the atheist mind lacks the vital trait of curiosity needed for higher abstract thought and advanced intelligence.
Sabian Cole - still incorrect. Thry don't say that there is a singularity at the beginning of the early universe that prevents us from knowing the origin of the big bang. Youre making stuff up. Again, all that can be said for Certain is that around 14b years ago the universe was incredibly hot and dense and then it expanded. Thats literally it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Sabian wrote: "still incorrect."
I wasn't incorrect either time. You just don't read enough.
Sabian wrote: "Thry don't say that there is a singularity at the beginning of the early universe that prevents us from knowing the origin of the big bang."
They actually do. Tsk.
Sabian wrote: "Youre making stuff up."
You should read more and kneejerk post from your emotions less. There's a lad.
Sabian Cole - I read plenty and you're still making stuff up. You seem to think that a gravitational singularity has been detected or observed or even inferred in the initial conditions of the big bang. This is untrue. Gravitational singularity | WIKI
Muhammad Rasheed - Sabian wrote: "I read plenty"
Clearly not if you believe that the black hole's gravitational singularity is the only singularity ever described in cosmology science. lol Atheists tend to go out of their way to show how ignorant they are.
Here:
["The singularity associated with the Big Bang is often referred to as the Big Bang singularity, initial singularity, or cosmological singularity. It's the point of infinite density, temperature, and curvature from which, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated."]
Muhammad Rasheed - Apparently, all of these giggle emojis you keep posting are designed to show how clownish you are, right?
Sabian Cole - no. They are designed to show you that your comments are laughably uninformed.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's hilarious considering you had NO IDEA there was an initial singularity associated with the Big Bang, and you're just an ignorant and close-minded flapping mouth like all atheists.
Frank Domínguez - @Muhammad... Any “explanation” for the God argument is the same one for the Big Bang argument. Except there’s evidence for the latter.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Frank... Evidence for Big Bang is part of the folio of evidence for God's existence.
The evidence for Big Bang shows that the material universe had a beginning. The material CANNOT come from nothing and must have been initiated by a Necessary Immaterial SOMETHING. That's a clue for God.
Eduardo Mariano - @Muhammad... I find it curious that you even specified the ‘theistic’ texts, cuz a finite Universe does support (although it’s not evidence of) a ‘Deistic’ creator.
A theistic creator (or God, in this case) is a Lot more than a creator, and it’s THAT being that is being rejected by Dennett’s meme.
So he’s right, there is no evidence for any sort of creator, although an absent one might be justifiable.
Muhammad Rasheed - Eduardo wrote: "although an absent one might be justifiable"
The evidence of a carefully fine-tuned material universe proves the existence of the ever-present cherishing & sustaining Creator. The Deist idea of an absent Creator is the result of falsely believing that the misdeeds of evil people will forever go unpunished.
Eduardo Mariano - Let’s assume that it is “fine-tuned”, instead of accepting the parameters as random and that we’re here because causality allows us to be here.
How exactly does it *prove* the “existence of the ever-present cherishing and sustaining Creator” in opposition to an absent one? To “tune” a self-sufficient Universe (such as the one we live in) you only need to design and start it, not to maintain it.
Also, I’m sorry but I find it VERY silly to attribute evil to unholiness, whereas the absolute vast majority of the violence, destruction and deceit in the entire history of the world is intrinsically linked to the worshipping of Gods, specially (but not exclusively) the abrahamic God.
Muhammad Rasheed - Eduardo wrote: "not to maintain it."
Even at the human trades level, it still needs to be maintained with regular preventive maintenance checks and replaced equipment, et cetera. Only for short periods of time can it be ignored while it runs.
Eduardo wrote: "the absolute vast majority of the violence, destruction and deceit in the entire history of the world is intrinsically linked to the worshipping of Gods"
This is an untruth spread by the type of atheist that just assumes his off-the-cuff thoughts about something he's never actually studied are true. Most of the violence, destruction and deceit among the human species come from greed and empire expansion, not specifically from adherence to religious tenets.
Eduardo Mariano - M. Rasheed wrote: “even at human trades level (…)”
Dude, stop it. You said “FINE-tuning”. Also, the texts mention both the creator and the creation as ‘PERFECT’.
As such, it does not require maintenance, nor can it ever be compared to ANY work of men.
M. Rasheed wrote: “This is an untruth spread by (…)”
No, literally any history book, regardless of the writer’s spirituality will say the exact same thing. Not only the book, but the art, the architecture, even the Church itself will tell us the same history, a history that we see even today AS WE SPEAK”. A history of near unilateral violence and intolerance from the part of those who think their religion and personal beliefs should dictate how others live.
And the funny thing is that all of its cause is actually written in the Book itself!
You’re either blind or a hypocrite, if you genuinely think otherwise.
But no, I don’t think that’s the case. I think I’m being foolish to entertain a troll.
Muhammad Rasheed - Eduardo wrote: "Dude, stop it."
I'm explaining the topic from my own understanding as an informed practicing theist. Please stop trying to impose your non-informed, outsider opinion of a topic you have never studied. Your job is to LISTEN because you hold nothing to argue with.
Eduardo wrote: "You said 'FINE-tuning.'"
I did. God calls Himself the "Cherisher & Sustainer," so whatever you think is meant by "fine-tuning" is not accurate. I have no reason whatsoever to take seriously the uninformed opinion of an outsider who demonstrates with each post that he has more emotionalism than knowledge.
Eduardo wrote: "Also, the texts mention both the creator and the creation as ‘PERFECT.'"
Only God is perfect. He made His creation with excellence that no one can duplicate, but by definition, only God is perfect.
Eduardo wrote: "As such, it does not require maintenance"
God's Cherisher & Sustainer attributes refute this claim.
Eduardo wrote: "nor can it ever be compared to ANY work of men."
Correct.
Eduardo wrote: "No, literally any history book, regardless of the writer’s spirituality will say the exact same thing. Not only the book, but the art, the architecture, even the Church itself will tell us the same history, a history that we see even today AS WE SPEAK."
You're using an Appeal to the People and an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy to make a fake point. Most of the human violence, etc., throughout history was performed out of secular-level greed, not to obey religious tenets.
Eduardo wrote: "A history of near unilateral violence and intolerance from the part of those who think their religion and personal beliefs should dictate how others live."
Provide real world examples to prove your point, not empty rhetoric that you think sounds good to you.
Eduardo wrote: "And the funny thing is that all of its cause is actually written in the Book itself!"
Your exclamation mark does not magically make a point true. Do you believe you performed a spell?
