This cuts both ways. You believe in the physical world and you're arguing that people who's believe in God is based purely on faith isn't real in the physical world. No shit. The fact that people who's faith is purely that faith are seeking proof is simply proof of their own insecurity in their faith.
you're right. the problem with your position is now you have to argue how, absent of any physical facts to validate it, that it is logical, reasonable and believable that this entire vast universe (or multiverse) came into existence out of nothing, seemingly contradicting one of the most basic scientific tenants -- cause and effect, and not logical, reasonable and believable that, absent of physical evidence, there is an external force that put the entire thing in motion, which at least adheres to the basic scientific tenant of cause and effect.
So it's impossible that something came from nothing? Okay, then what did god come from? It makes no sense to claim that god has been around forever, yet it is impossible that the universe (or something larger) has been around forever with no god. Religion provides an explanation, but that explanation doesn't really provide any answers, even to the same questions that you are using to justify belief in religion. As for an actual answer to that question, I have no idea how the universe/multiverse actually came to exist. But I'm not just going to latch onto an incomplete, unlikely explanation just because I don't know the real answer. EDIT: And to clarify, I think it is possible, if not likely, that there is a powerful force beyond our knowledge or understanding that played a role in the creation of this world. I just don't think that any organized religion even comes close to describing what it is, what it looks like, or what it "wants" from us.
There has been no observable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a divine being. That seems like invented to me. It's not about drawing definitive conclusions. It's about there being at least some observable and repeatable evidence in favor of one position while there is none in favor of the other. I don't care if humans have only been able to understand/explain 0.000000000000000000000001% of how the universe really works through scientific means. When compared to zero percent explained by divine means, that is still infinitely better. Literally, infinitely better. You're arguing semantics and trying to point to a very specific field of science that is inherently difficult to study. (You are also making some fairly ignorant claims about what is or is not known regarding the work done in astrophysics.) There is a fair amount of observable evidence and work that has been repeated (and built upon) that suggests perfectly reasonable, natural explanations for how the universe started. They might not be explanations that you find particularly satisfying (which, if I'm not mistaken, gets at what you're REALLY looking for... not a correct answer, but a satisfying one), but they require no supernatural being. And so, if one is not required, then why bother to invent one?
To piggyback on this idea, it's not like you need to latch onto a more complete and semi-possible explanation either and cling to it for dear life. What some of these posters seem not to understand about science is that no one needs to make a conclusion about What Is Really The Truth Now and Forever. These theories are based on what fits the information at the time. If the information changes, the theory changes. The Big Bang theory wasn't always widely supported. Steady state theory was competing with the Big Bang theory for years, until the evidence from experiments started supporting the idea of a big bang far more than a steady state. Right now, there have been thousands (if not more) experiments performed supporting the idea that the universe began as an infinitesimally small point. The cosmic microwave background, red shift, the Hubble deep field shots... it's not like these are "beliefs" based on a gut feeling. I think a lot of it just goes over people's heads. Not many people subscribe to scientific journals and peruse the work that's being done. Even fewer people are capable of understanding it... most of them lack the mathematical background. Instead we get, "Big Bang Theory? Oh yeah? Well what made that happen, huh smartypants?" But that's just meant to be a snarky quip, because the asker of that question never really wanted to get into a discussion about the zero-net-energy-ness of the universe and the power that has to answer the how and what questions (if not the why questions). They just wanted to play Gotcha!... and play it poorly.
As evidenced by the way hE murdered the entire world population in one event and scattered them across the Earth, confused, in another. For wanting to be like hE who created man in hIS image. It's obvious that gOD wants man to know hIM. Because hE said so.
You still haven't explained why your interpretation of God's hopes, dreams and aspirations is entitled to any more credence than Fred Phelps's interpretation. How do you know you're right and he's not?
This is the key to God. This is why we kill ourselves, die millions of deaths, treat each other as meat. God gives us a path to eternity. Our mortality is the key to understanding the exsistence of God. The exsistence of the heavens and earth and all that's tangible isn't enough to give God meaning or exsistence it's all about our mortality.
Our mortality continues to extend itself year after year. Someday we will be like gOD and link our minds like a giant hive and continue to transfer our consciousness to new bodies, so we can spread our presence across the universe to create new life. Everlasting life is cool. The key to knowing gOD is becoming hIM.
That's easy ... you can tell the type of tree by the fruit it bears. False teachers have been around for a long, long time. The Bible is filled with stories of people that distort the truth of God's Word. They will be held accountable. How do I know I'm right? I don't think anyone's 100% right. BUT, my faith made a very big difference in my life ... a 2 Cor 5:17 kind of difference. I think I'm right about the one important thing. Some things can't be explained easily but you just know.
One cool paradox I have seen in the bible... Satan/Lucifer is referred to in a couple of instances as a serpent and a dragon. There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bOOK, though they are undesputedly proven to have existed and also exterminated at some point in the history of our planet, a planet supposedly created by gOD. What connection does the devil/Satan/Lucifer have to dinosaurs? Because early man, at the point that they were transcribing the "greatest story ever told", they would have no way of knowing about that early reptilian life. Why such an emphasis on reptiles being evil?
Exactly. hE loves man and wants man to know hIM, but he is also the owner and creator of man and can do whatever the fuck he wants with man. Kind of like a scientist given a government grant to create new bacterial life. Removing that whole "I want you to know me and be close to me" bullshit.
Okay, at least you are acknowledging that you have no special pipeline into God's psyche. That's good. But why should anyone take your word for it that you "just know"?
