[Nonsense]

I suppose one could say that the best argument for 'Atheism'(if that is the correct way to describe absence of belief)is that the 'alternative' viewpoint, that of 'religions' or 'personal beliefs' in the existence of a 'god', have not, will not, for all of time, ever be able to provide one iota of 'evidence' to prove their case, that is the antithesis of the absence of belief or 'faith'.

In this country, those who thought they were above the 'plebs', decided that the best way to keep them(the plebs) 'in their proper place', according to the order of society, was to make the 'good' book, legal documents, medical prescriptions, et'c , written or printed in LATIN.

The 'problem' was, the 'plebs' were more intelligent than they were given credit for.

The 'church', it is true, were the originators of 'formal' education in this country.

In fact, church councils, quite literally, were the body that were the progenitors of what we know as 'Councils'.

They collected dues from those able to contribute & distributed the proceeds(less their cut-'skimming')to those in need throughout the parish, in the form of 'Poor Law' or 'Parish Relief'.

Things only very slowly began their change post WW1,more so post WW2,though I am sure that the Tories would love to reverse things quick than they currently are.

You see, 'education' is a great thing, it equips one with the tools, not just to keep our snouts in the capitalist trough, but, to open our eyes to gaze upon the universe in all it's awesome beauty & reality.

In so doing, there is no need to 'believe' that any tooth fairy ignited the vital spark that began it all, such as the 'pope' ascertains when he says that 'it requires a creator', thereby taking 'ownership' of the Big Bang for his church.

ALL 'religion' = Sigma 0 on the scale of evidence pertaining to the existence of a 'god'.

So-called, 'atheist' do not, are not, 'required' to disprove the existence of a 'god'.

The onus lies 100% with those individuals or religious organisations who regularly make public statements to the effect that a 'god' exist.

The Roman Catholic church's foundations are built on the statement that, "Jesus 'Christ' is the, 'Son of god' period".

It should not be allowed to perpetuate itself on the basis of what is an absolutely un-founded statement, AKA , the BIG LIE.

[One Degree]

It should not be allowed to perpetuate itself on the basis of what is an absolutely un-founded statement, AKA , the BIG LIE.

Why not? 'Unfounded' is based upon your belief in science. There is nothing that says people need to abide by this.

[Nonsense]

So, you think that it's alright to state the existence of 'something' based on nothing but rhetorical licence?

In my experience, too much power has been ceded to those using rhetoric without substance, in order to control them.

If you want to know why TRUMP was elected, look no further ^.

[One Degree]

So, you think that it's alright to state the existence of 'something' based on nothing but rhetorical licence?

In my experience, too much power has been ceded to those using rhetoric without substance, in order to control them.

If you want to know why TRUMP was elected, look no further ^.

It is all based upon a fairy tale. The only thing that matters is does your particular fairy tale give you comfort or pain. Science is no different. What purpose does it serve if not to make people's lives better? Other things accomplish this too. They are the same.

[Nonsense]

Why not? 'Unfounded' is based upon your belief in science.

Sorry, I do not have 'belief's'.

I take my position on anything based upon 'observation' , 'evidence', 'experience', 'proof', 'reason', 'experiment', with an added dose of 'reflection', but, I am always open to 'adjustment' whenever the case warrants it.

I think that my mind-set is in accordance with the 'scientific method' & I do not 'believe' everything that I read, even 'scientific' papers.

[One Degree]

I take my position on anything based upon 'observation' , 'evidence', 'experience', 'proof', 'reason', 'experiment', with an added dose of 'reflection', but, I am always open to 'adjustment' whenever the case warrants it.

You must have a strong belief in these ^ things. You can not eliminate a belief of some kind. If nothing else you must trust your senses for all of the above and our senses our notorious for sending us 'false' messages. You are choosing to believe what your eyes tell you when the evidence tells you they may not accurately relay information. This is why scientist require their findings to be verified by others, because we are capable of making the same mistakes over and over without realizing it. A consensus of scientists simply tells you they all believe in the same illusion until a better illusion comes along.

[Besoeker]

Sorry, I do not have 'belief's'.

I take my position on anything based upon 'observation' , 'evidence', 'experience', 'proof', 'reason', 'experiment', with an added dose of 'reflection', but, I am always open to 'adjustment' whenever the case warrants it.

I think that my mind-set is in accordance with the 'scientific method' & I do not 'believe' everything that I read, even 'scientific' papers.

Nothing like a healthy dose of scepticism .

[Agent Steel]

1) Why is there Being, instead of just absolute and total Nothingness? There is no logical response to this question. The very fact that Being IS is logical paradox, (because 'something' cannot come from 'nothing'.) ..So, in a very literal sense, we are living in a fundamentally paradoxical reality.

This is a tired old argument which commits a logically fallacious move by trying to explain a mystery by invoking an even bigger mystery, which itself would also require an explanation. By your own logic, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?

Why can't theists seem to get this??

[Potemkin]

This is a tired old argument which commits a logically fallacious move by trying to explain a mystery by invoking an even bigger mystery, which itself would also require an explanation. By your own logic, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?

If the Universe were known to have always existed, then there would be no problem, logically speaking. That which has always existed requires no creator. This is why Schopenhauer insisted that the Universe must be eternal and cannot have had a beginning - it was the only logical way to dispense with the need for a creator-God, which he very much wanted to do. However, the Universe did indeed have a definite beginning, and given the fact that causality cannot be extended part the point of the Big Bang, this makes the fact that there is something rather than nothing rather mysterious, on the face of it. Wouldn't you agree?

[B0ycey]

This is a tired old argument which commits a logically fallacious move by trying to explain a mystery by invoking an even bigger mystery, which itself would also require an explanation. By your own logic, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?

Why can't theists seem to get this??

What you quote here is actually a science problem, not a religious one. Why? Well it is science that states something cannot come from nothing. That every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Religion makes no such claim. In fact, its foundation is based on miracles or spontaneous acts coerced by God's plan. In other words, things or actions do come from nothing. Sciences principle idea for the start of the big band is a primal soup of energy that expanded outwards at some point in history to create the universe we know today. It has no answer to where this energy came from. And it spits in the face of Newtons third law.

So if something cannot come from nothing, science has a massive problem explained anything. Religion on the other hand can say God did it. So where did God come from I hear you cry? Well if you use the concept that God is eternal and his existence has no beginning, that would mean he has always existed. He existed before even time existed. And so he does not actually need to be created. Or so I would claim if I was actually a theist anyways.

[One Degree]

I have not read anything on the Big Bang for a few years, but has the theory been dismissed of an ever expanding and contracting universe which explains the big bang and the eternal existence of the universe?

[Potemkin]

I have not read anything on the Big Bang for a few years, but has the theory been dismissed of an ever expanding and contracting universe which explains the big bang and the eternal existence of the universe?

Yes. The universe is now known to be gravitationally open rather than closed. This means that its expansion will continue indefinitely.

[B0ycey]

I have not read anything on the Big Bang for a few years, but has the theory been dismissed of an ever expanding and contracting universe which explains the big bang and the eternal existence of the universe?

Apart from finding the Higgs Boson (which is now found), what do you think that Hadron Collider thingy has been doing all this time? The Big Bang remains sciences prime theory for the beginning of the universe since some scientists couldn't explain hearing static coming from a radio antenna a few years back. And until something better comes along, this will remain the case. The last time I read about it, scientists got to something like a fraction of a second just before the beginnings of the universe before all their equations fell apart. So even QM doesn't fit in with the Big Bang theory mechanics yet. Not the standard model we know today anyways. But even if it did, where has the energy to start the Big Bang come from? And more importantly, if the universe is expanding outwards (inflation theory), if Newton is also correct, why isn't the universe also deflating from the centre at the same rate? After all, that would be the opposite reaction.

[One Degree]

Apart from finding the Higgs Boson (which is now found), what do you think that Hadron Collider thingy has been doing all this time? The Big Bang remains sciences prime theory for the beginning of the universe since some scientists couldn't explain hearing static coming from a radio antenna a few years back. And until something better comes along, this will remain the case. The last time I read about it, scientists got to something like a fraction of a second just before the beginnings of the universe before all their equations fell apart. So even QM doesn't fit in with the Big Bang theory mechanics yet. Not the standard model we know today anyways. But even if it did, where has the energy to start the Big Bang come from? And more importantly, if the universe is expanding outwards (inflation theory), if Newton is also correct, why isn't the universe also deflating from the centre at the same rate? After all, that would be the opposite reaction.

I was not doubting the Big Bang, but was asking of current theories on expansion and contraction. I actually just read up on them so have a better idea now of the current thinking. None of them seem to have the 'ring of truth' to me.

[B0ycey]

I was not doubting the Big Bang, but was asking of current theories on expansion and contraction. I actually just read up on them so have a better idea now of the current thinking. None of them seem to have the 'ring of truth' to me.

Yes, there remains at least one that I am aware of. But it is a theory. Part of inflation I think. But the inflating-deflating universe is one theory of many theories. But I will say this, most theories don't use this notion. The majority seem to base their ideas on the ever expanding universe concept where matter will become low value energy (heat) which over time will dwindle to nothingness. But even that is a theory. Every idea for the Big Bang is just that as they can't yet be proven and are difficult to be disproven.

[One Degree]

Yes, there remains at least one that I am aware of. But it is a theory. Part of inflation I think. But the inflating-deflating universe is one theory of many theories. But I will say this, most theories don't use this notion. The majority seem to accepted is the ever expanding concept where matter will become low value energy (heat) which over time will dwindle to nothingness. But even that is a theory. Every idea for the Big Bang is just that as they can't yet be proven and are difficult to be disproven.

Thanks. I got a little lost when they started talking about the implications of the Universe expanding faster than the speed of light. I will need more than a few minutes to try to process that.

[Agent Steel]

However, the Universe did indeed have a definite beginning

Oh really? And you know this how exactly?

[Potemkin]

Oh really? And you know this how exactly?

God told me so.

More accurately, Science told me so....

The Big Bang

[Besoeker]

What you quote here is actually a science problem, not a religious one. Why? Well it is science that states something cannot come from nothing.

One explanation is that the total net energy in the universe is zero. Take gravity for example. It consumes energy to throw a bal in the air. It is given back as the ball falls to earth.

From Einstien we know about an equivalence that ties mass and energy together. If the total energy is zero it could have come from zero mass.
Not something from nothing. Nothing from nothing.

[Agent Steel]

The big bang is not a theory of cosmic origins. A "big bang" occurs any time enough matter is compressed under enough pressure, and this is the case within the center of every black hole. Our own, observable universe is the product of one such event.