Do you believe in God or do you believe that everything just happened all by itself?
Silence of Mind
Silence of Mind
Where God Speaks and Creation Listens
One Question for Atheists
99 responses to “One Question for Atheists”
-
To couch it as an either or question is dishonest
LikeLike
-
What is honest or dishonest?
LikeLike
-
Because rightly, they are two separate questions that you have “mashed” together for polemical reason. 1. Do you believe God? ( obvious answer from them, that you already know, is that they do not believe God or gods exist) the 2nd, if it were really and ‘honest’ and non arrogant, non baiting question, is a completely separate one… namely, “how do you think the universe began?”. The way you asked, and the way you stuffed the two questions together is attempting to make them look stupid and idiotic for not believing as we do. Rightly, it’s not a question at all, but a backhanded attack. It’s dishonest and lacks integrity. You and we as Christians can do better than asking questions of those who don’t believe as we do… in such arrogant and attacking ways. How we Represent Christ in these questions and in our interactions with others matters, som. Do better.
-
Barabbas, It is okay and very honest to put the word “or” in a sentence. It indicates a choice. We love choice don’t we? From the Cambridge dictionary: “Or is a conjunction that connects two or more possibilities or alternatives.”
LikeLike
-
-
Barabbas, I will break down the One Question for Atheists, so even an atheist like you can understand it. That is, if understanding is what you truly wish for.
Part 1: Do you believe in God? In philosophy, God, by definition, is the first cause that caused everything.
Part 2: Since atheism is the belief that God does not exist, it follows that atheists do not believe in the first cause of everything.
Ergo, atheism is the belief that everything just happened all by itself.
I used simple logic to explain my point. And there is nothing more honest than simple logic.
-
Lol. I’m not an atheist.
LikeLike
-
Speaking of “quacks” and quacking…lol. But I digress. Have you even read any of my posts? I’m not an atheist, you Silly Goose.
LikeLike
-
Just sayin’… if I’m atheist then you’re Hindu
LikeLike
-
-
-
And again… your number 2 is wrong. Atheism is NOT the belief that God does not exist. Youvenbeen told this over, and over, and over. You hold onto this incorrect definition of atheism intentionally and for polemical purposes. It is a continual Lie that you tell and tell and tell over and over. You’re either delusional in your hatred for them, or you yourself are not a Christian and just have this WP blog as a Troll Site. Either way, you are not representing Christ or Christianity, but yourself.
LikeLike
-
Barabbas, “atheist” literally means godless. Again, from any dictionary, the definition of the word, atheist:
“Atheist – One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being.
A godless man; one who disregards his duty to God.”
Your argument isn’t with me, it is with the English language.
LikeLike
-
Barabbas, What I have found common among atheists like you, is that you even deny what you are. You can’t face the truth about reality and you can’t face the truth about yourself. Why is that?
LikeLike
-
Som, respectfully and with as much kindness as I can muster… you seem to be “denying” whose you are… by your words, behavior and attitude. I’m not sure which jesus you think you are representing… but its not the one reflected in the nt or the writings of Paul. I’m going to pray for you and ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you as He reveals who you really are at the core of your being. I’ll pray God “grants you repentance to the recovery of yourself from the snare of the devil, who has taken you captive at his will”. I’d worry more about your own heart and standing in Christ than about mine at this juncture. Cheers and have a great day. – Barabbas
-
Barabbas, Your responses are irrational. You don’t know English and you can’t follow basic logic to simple conclusions. you blame me for your own cognitive problems. All of the above are characteristics of the atheist mind, by the way.
LikeLike
-
Barabbas, another thing atheists like you do, is vomit holy scripture when you become desperate. Oh, and then comes the sermon of shame. By this point in the conversation, atheists are so angry that most just start cursing. Others like you, beat Christians over the head with the Bible and their own moral values. I find that aspect of the atheist mind to be particularly objectionable.
-
-
-
-
Doug, Have you ever seen mud create anything? Non-living matter cannot create anything. Look around. Only God and man have the power to create.
LikeLike
-
Yet the Big Bang (or God) created it all from nothing.
LikeLike
-
The Big Bang was caused by something therefore it is not God. That something that caused the Big Bang was the first cause of everything. By definition, the first cause is God. Therefore God caused the Big Bang.
LikeLike
-
-
“Non-living matter can’t create anything,” is a simple, true statement.
LikeLike
-
-
-
-
-
Nor one that ate itself. Now I’m hungry
LikeLike
*Subbing
LikeLike
-
-
Nor am I, but if your question is nonsensical then it is impossible to answer. Hence my question… which will reveal if your question is nonsensical.
It’s really quite a simple question: Can you name one thing in a so-called “living cell” that is actually “alive”?
Just one thing, SoM… can you?
-
-
-
Glad you can, because I can’t even find this thread in the comments.
LikeLike
-
-
-
SOM
The comment thread is kind of weird. You may wish to call WordPress and see if customer support has a fix.
I agree Zande is just changing the subject. His question is not germane.
Zande has tried to change a philosophical discussion to a technical discussion. Whereas your question is derived from age-old philosophical arguments, If he cannot come up with an answer, that should concern him. The question demands a logical answer, not technical knowledge that we don’t have.
Zande is throwing up a question no one can answer. Is there something in a living cell that is actually alive? Does Zande know? How?
All Zande is doing is playing a word game. What is the definition of life? What is the definition of living? We don’t define “life” or use the word “living” based upon the components within a cell. We don’t know enough to do so. We only know something about the functions of certain components within a cell.
-
Great comment, Citizen. The question I ask proves that atheism is a farce. The two atheists who commented here, Barabbas and Zande, did everything they could to change the subject instead of answer the question.
Since atheists knowingly believe in a farce, that means atheism is a cult of drones.
Zande’s question actually disproves atheism also. It deserves a separate discussion. I did not respond to Zande because I thought it important for atheists to stare truth in the face.
-
-
John, Your question actually proves the existence of God using biology. Since you are science illiterate it’s best to stick with my simple question that even makes sense to a middle schooler.
Also, I already answered your question years ago and since you are science illiterate you had no idea what I was talking about. That is why you ask the question over and over again.
-
-
Som, for zande’s benefit and Tom’s… once again, I am not an atheist. I have No idea why you keep making that charge. It really is getting annoying though.
LikeLike
-
-
No word games at all. In fact, the only people playing a word games are the theists who say “Something” from “Nothing.” Firstly, who’s to say there was ever nothing? There is no evidence for such a state. We presently cannot even see what was going on before Inflation. From this, I can simply state, There was never nothing. The universe is aseitic. You are confusing a change of state with a beginning.
Secondly, something from nothing implies some magical input, changing one state to another, which the theist is demanding the atheist to explain. SoM’s comments layout is terrible, but I did see he was talking somewhere here about abiogenesis. Don’t play dumb — abiogenesis is all tied up with this ‘something to nothing’ question. Life!
So, my question strikes to the very heart of the matter. It compels the theist to engage the actual subject like an adult… which is why I suspect you will not even attempt to answer it. You prefer pantomimes. But I’ll ask anyway:
CT: Can you name a single thing in a so-called “living cell” that is actually “alive”?
-
Zande
The universe is aseitic? Well, at least that unprovable assertion is germane to the topic, but there are strong indications to the contrary.
I didn’t invent the Big Bang Theory. You may wish to look up who did. The theory, which is beyond our present capacity to prove, suggests the universe exploded into being.
Entropy is a thermodynamic concept that indicates that the universe had a beginning. Why? The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. Perhaps you don’t understand what that means. If so, then maybe you ought to study the concept.
Is it possible that universe has the property of aseity? I doubt science is capable of answering that question. I will just observe that Atheistic astronomers started warming to the multi-verse concept once they realized their Big Bang Theory suggested that a Big Bang that resulted in the creation of life was highly improbable.
I think you have abiogenesis mixed up with spontaneous generation. If I recall correctly, I believe the French Encyclopediasts argued for spontaneous generation and Louis Pasteur deproved the theory.
Anyway, would you please point to that part of the universe that has the property of aseity?
-
Point to the part? LOL! Looks like you don’t know what aseity means, but let me re-word this question so you can see the absurdity of what you wrote: CT, please point to the part of Yhwh that has the property of aseity…
See the absurdity? I hope so.
CT, your grasp of cosmology is horrible. But don’t worry, I haven’t met a US evangelical apologist yet who is even vaguely up-to-date. We know today, for example, that there could not have been a singularity, and therefore the BB hypothesis of origins—nottheory—is wrong. It lingers, though, in the minds of people like you because it seems so neat. The truth is, Inflation happened before the hot BB, but we [presently] have absolutely no idea what was happening before Inflation because all physics breaks down. The reality is that we have data only from the last 10-34 seconds of Inflation.
All we can state with certainty is that the state we call the hot Big Bang only came about after the end of inflation. It says nothing about inflation’s origins … We do not know where the inflationary state came from, however. It might arise from a pre-existing state that does have a singularity, it might have existed in its inflationary form forever, or the Universe itself might even be cyclical in nature … Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they’re now nearly a full 40 years out of date. When they assert that “the Big Bang was the beginning,” you’ll know why cosmic inflation actually came first. As far as what came before the final fraction-of-a-second of inflation? Your hypothesis is just as good as anyone’s.
Because we know matter and energy never reached zero, a natural change of state is a far more coherent statement than “magic happened.” But the truth is, we just don’t know [yet] what was happening before.
And finally, No – abiogenesis is exactly what I meant, and it is in-line with SoM’s “do you believe that everything just happened all by itself?” It is an appeal to magic (to create the universe, or life), and my question quite eloquently disproves any magic at play in the latter, and that speaks to the former.
Which is why you will not address the question, but I’ll repeat it nonetheless: Name one thing in a so-called “living cell” that is actually “alive.”
-
-
Zande
We have data from 15 billion years ago. WOW!
Frankly, I don’t think you understand what you are reading, not that it is easy to understand. I have a book with a 1998 copyright date that says much the same thing as your Forbes article. That book contains a pertinent observation.
Note this statement from your Forbes article.
The laws of physics break down, and stop giving sensible answers, once you reach an extremely high energy of ~1019 GeV per particle, which corresponds to an “age of the Universe” of ~10-43 seconds after the Big Bang.
Do you have any idea how small a time 10 to the -43 seconds is? Apparently not, and I doubt you understand just how small 10 to the -32 seconds is either.
At 10 to the -43 seconds the density of the universe would have been 10 to the 96 times the density of water. Do you have any idea how big 10 to the 96 is? As some astronomers pointed out “such a fantastic density is already pretty singular by anybody’s standards” (from that book). Well, not your standards, I suppose. 😆
Is the Big Bang Theory true? I said we cannot prove that it is, but the inability to prove their hypotheses does not stop some people from calling their pet hypotheses theories.
When it was first developed, it was Atheists who loved the Big Bang Theory. Then they begin to realize the theory tends to contradict the Atheist viewpoint. Oops!
My question, BTW, was meant to be sarcasm, obvious sarcasm, but I guess my sarcasm wasn’t obvious enough. Sigh!
Consider your own question in light of your comments on my question.
Which is why you will not address the question, but I’ll repeat it nonetheless: Name one thing in a so-called “living cell” that is actually “alive.”
So, again, I ask: would you please point to that part of the universe that has the property of aseity?
Do yourself a favor. Look up what Encyclopedia Britanica has to say about abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. Then consider the fact that God doesn’t do magic. He is the Creator. He created our universe and the rules under which that universe operates. We cannot do magic. We can only discover the rules God made for His universe. We can only perform “magic tricks” to fool each other.
-
I have a book with a 1998 copyright date that says much the same thing as your Forbes article.
Um, no it doesn’t. But your comment is a great example of why it’s generally futile talking to a US evangelical about cosmology. I went out of my way to show you that Inflation came before the hot bb, and you present something from a quarter of a century ago that still presents the bb and the notion of a singularity. If you read the article (I chose that one specifically for you because it was easy to read) you would have seen the extrapolation backwards does not reach zero.
-
Zando
Don’t take yourself so seriously.
Astronomers are using star data from today to extrapolate back 15 billion years in time. Any serious mathematician knows such an extrapolation is absurdly risky.
Note also that much of that the star data comes from stars that are as far out as our instruments can see. We can only guess at what happens when electromagnetic radiation travels such enormous distances, and that is all we are doing, guessing.
When Atheists conjecture about such things, their speculations often backfire. That tends to happen when we have axe to grind. Instead of exercising objectivity and letting the data guide us, we spend our efforts trying to prove what we already want to believe.
Why doesn’t the extrapolation back into time reach zero? Even if our data is correct, the models we are using cease to make any sense at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang. In other words, nobody knows. Even the guy who invented the inflationary theory said that his theory by itself does not explain where the universe (a very small universe at time) came from. That is, what did happen at time zero? No serious scientific model can provide an answer.
Science describes causes and effect relationships. The Big Bang Theory (or whatever you want to call it) describes a series of causes and effects. It does not describe what God did at the beginning because we don’t know enough — will never know enough — to model what God did and still does. All we know is that God set our universe into motion and sustains it because nothing else makes any logical, philosophical sense.
You want to argue with that? Shrug! Your problem, but science doesn’t have an answer. Reason requires us to turn treat our beliefs about God with the tools provided by logic and philosophy
-
Why doesn’t the extrapolation back into time reach zero?
Well, I know this is a novel idea for you, but perhaps you should *actually* read the article and educate yourself? Honestly, I selected that one specifically because it was easy for people like to understand…
Even if our data is correct, the models we are using cease to make any sense at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang. In other words, nobody knows.
Two points. One: it’s Inflation, NOT the bb. How many times do I have to repeat this to you? Two: that’s exactly what I’ve been saying! Jesus man, do you even read what people write to you?
-
Zande
Cosmic Inflation is a way of modeling what is commonly known as the Big Bang. Because you like that model, I am suppose to care and adopt your language? Everyone else isn’t going to do that.
Your obsession with word choices is weird. Instead arguing the issue, you ridicule and argue against my word choices. Not much logic or reason in that.
Anyway, that’s not what you have been saying. Regardless of the modeling technique, the Big Bang Theory suggests the universe had a beginning, and you don’t like that. So, think about what you did say. Consider why I asked you a question.
Can you tell which part of the universe has the property of aseity?
-
Cosmic Inflation is a way of modeling what is commonly known as the Big Bang.
LoL! No it’s not, you idiot. It is a completely different cosmological model which explains very well why the universe looks the way it looks. It also sets the stage for a hot BB, which came AFTER. Your insistence the BB is it is 40 years out-of-date, you imbecile. Do please catch-up.
And I have repeatedly said we have absolutely no idea what was happening before Inflation. However, because Inflation (not the bb which postulates a singularity) is the origin of our universe, then it is wildly more coherent (and rooted in reality) to say “a change of state.” Of course, this is speculation, and until we understand quantum gravity we’ll never know for sure, but it’s staggeringly more feasible than “Magic Happened.”
Anyway, you’re boring me senseless. If you can’t even up-date your pantomime worldview to meet present day cosmology then this is a complete waste of my time.
Have a day
-
-
-
-
Already addressed that.
There was never nothing.
The universe is aseitic.
You are confusing a ‘beginning’ with a change of state.LikeLike
-
John, The eternal universe theory was debunked 50 years ago. You are a science illiterate flailing around in an ocean of knowledge.
LikeLike
-
I think you mean steady-state…
LikeLike
-
John, The steady state universe is long forgotten by science. It is only remembered by atheists who need it to make atheism work out for them.
LikeLike
-
John, Inflation took place for a finite period of time after the Big Bang.
LikeLike
-
What Came First: Inflation Or The Big Bang?
Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they’re now nearly a full 40 years out of date.
Unlike CT, please read this simple-to-read article, and update your understanding of cosmology.
-
Dear John, Before the Big Bang there was nothing to inflate. Forget the “science” and just use your noggin. You are spewing so much crap you need to be hosed down.
LikeLike
-
Or this:
Putting the “bang” in the Big Bang
Physicists simulate critical “reheating” period that kickstarted the Big Bang in the universe’s first fractions of a second.
Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office
Publication Date:
October 24, 2019Just before the Big Bang launched the universe onto its ever-expanding course, physicists believe, there was another, more explosive phase of the early universe at play: cosmic inflation, which lasted less than a trillionth of a second. During this period, matter — a cold, homogeneous goop — inflated exponentially quickly before processes of the Big Bang took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe.
John, I think you mean everything just happened all by itself.
LikeLike
[…] ran into a similar problem with John Zande in the comments on this post, One Question for Atheists (silenceofmind.wordpress.com). What […]
LikeLike
Here’s my take on the weeks commentary.
After avoiding the question at the head of the post by jz, and after creating diversions, I must say, that all links, tennis lobs back and forth, all ‘certainties’ of alleged facts. and years, time, have provided comedy maybe, but at the end of the day are extremely BORING.
It’s like listening to a conversation between 5 blind men who all swear they and they alone, know what the color of blue looks like. They all sound knowledgeable, reasonable, good intentioned, but all are positively clueless having NEVER seen the color blue.
And I say this with equal repudiation to any believer who holds to a ‘big bang.’ Remember, the key word: THEORY. All theory is not true. Some better than others, but not all true. BANG implies noise yes? The Creator doesn’t traffic in bangs, as a babbling brook is enough proof.
Pity the man who goes through life without admitting there is One greater than himself.
-
Great Lion, Your brazen common sense commentary is but one of many reasons why you are so widely loved and appreciated.
LikeLike
-
-
-
-
Well here’s a good one too.
With the question at the top re. God or ‘accidental serendipity,’ did the thought occur to you How and Why iron is vital to your existence?Not just a gram mind you here and there, but throughout your body. You could not live without it. In blood, in your marrow.
And by the way, the sheer fact that iron is in dirt…… so the creator made man out of earth……
Gee, who would have thought….the iron fell out of a junkyard……
-
-
Silence of Mind 
Leave a comment