| 14 February 2003 at 23.11.37 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Gremlin [12.211.200.127 - 12-211-200-127.client.attbi.com] on 14 February 2003 at 23.11.37 ZuluTime:
In Reply to: Existance of a creator posted by Rasta Aaron on 14 February 2003 at 14.03.38 ZuluTime:
There must be a creator. How else is there a starting point to the universe?
Begging the question. While we know, as of three days ago, that the current iteration of the universe is 13.7billion years old, we also know--and have known--that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter and energy can only change form from one to the other. Knowing that, a creator is both unnecessary and impossible.
Understanding that [basic English], the real question is whether a designer exists. And that's the real debate. It also brings us to the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is: you do not talk about thermodynamics.
Okay; I'm joking. The second law states that a cold object can't give heat to a warmer object. Which, for some reason, inspires the most sophistic of theists to claim that order can't arise from chaos. Which, by the way, isnt true. Chaos begets order all the time. Even so: the universe is a chaotic system. There's really very little order in it.
Something cannot appear out of nothing, therefore nothing must be at the limits of our intelligence and perception. Indeed nothing had to be created by an inteligence that can percive far more than our little brains enable us.
The limitations of your little brain notwithstanding, your statement is logically sound. Nothing had to be created. We already knew this.
The real question should be how can you prove we were not created but appeared from absolutly nothing?
I'm about ready to start charging consulting rates to answer questions like these. The real answer is: there's no need to disprove the unproved.
Can I prove that you weren't created by Yhvh? No. Can I prove that you weren't created by Odin, having killed Ymir and building the universe of G'nig'g'nap into its skull? No. Can I prove any negative against an unproved positive? No. Because it's a waste of resources.
The brainless idea that an atheist is required to disprove all the unproved things out there is a typical theistic dodge. And it survives primarily because very few people actually speak English anymore.
To state positively that you believe deities don't exist, for example, is meant to be a shortcut. What it actually means is that you decline to believe that deities do exist, as baselessly asserted. Yes we have no bananas. Speak English or die.
Can some athiest answer this? Even the big bang was a reaction to something, what was the cause? Was it the word of god? does the word=vibrational sound=big
Speaking of English: two things.
A) it's spelled atheist. I don't know what athiest is supposed to be. More atheir than athy, I guess. Whatever that means.
B) Atheism is a pretty simple concept. Atheism: [Greek] the state of being without beliefs regarding deities. This includes the majority of things in the universe. Obviously, a number of homosapiens exist without beliefs regarding deities. So do all the other animals on the planet, and rocks and trees and so on. Atheism was never a positive belief in a negative assertion. Atheism was never a religion. Atheism is nothing more or less than the default position when you're not theistic. Which is to say that we, unlike you, never bought into the murky 'hypothesis' that deities must exist.
It's really not our job or concern to disprove your unfounded assertion. If and when you come up with a real hypothesis regarding deities, and manage to collect actual evidence supporting that hypothesis as a theory, and then prove that theory to be a fact...get all that accomplished, and we'll review it. But don't wander in and tell us that you want deities to exist until we're able to disprove your incoherent LARP. We're not going to waste our time on it.
--Gremlin