Welcome to the forum.

I have a reason. Not enough evidence.

As in, what do I believe in general?

Yes it is, unless you're changing the definition of reason. That's the most rational reason to not accept any positive claim.

About the origin of the universe? I don't know how the universe came to be.

Planets are usually formed as clouds of dust and gas collect together via gravity.

The Earth was not created in the Big Bang.

Objects with mass attract each other.

There is no evidence whatever for a God as creator of the Universe.

There is no evidence that the Universe could not have emerged from purely natural physical processes. According to Stephen Hawking, it is quite unnecessary to posit a 'God' as creator.

There is no explanation for where a God came from.

There is no logical reason why whatever initiated the 'Big Bang' had to be either infinite or conscious.

We cannot prove that some kind of conscious entity was involved, but that idea just adds an unnecessary complication, something extra to be explained, so it does not actually provide any ultimate explanation.

There could have been a whole troup of God-like entities involved. They could have been Satanic. There is no evidence for any of them. They could have been created by some higher being again. Once you start proposing things like this, there are an infinite number of 'possible' scenarios.

You need some actual positive empirical evidence that something resembling your particular concept of God is more likely than all these alternatives, or than a simple quantum-scale energy fluctuation.

EDIT: For what happened after the Big Bang, we have far more evidence for the scientific scenario than what is in any religious texts.

So what if it makes things more complicated if I claim there's a God? Do we stop studying physics when it gets to complicated? Do we stop trying to make a new fuel source when it gets to complicated?

Occam's Razor - the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions is most likely correct.

"Magic Man (or as you call him, God) Done it" isn't even close

No offense too him but William of Ockham can say whatever he wants. I would like actual facts please. Examples. Proven data.

You know, I have always wondered about the sanity of people who make this argument. You have such a hard time imagining that a cloud material has simply always existed but then turn around and quickly believe that an invisible, all powerful god has always existed. What is more likely? A gas cloud simply existing, or an intelligent invisible being that can build universes simply existing?

Your analogy might hold up if the planet was intricately designed. As it is, pretty much everything on the planet is haphazard and things that are not were designed by us or animals that we can identify. Go for a walk in the woods, you will see millions of beautiful designs, but they are all haphazard. Considering God is so powerful, I would think that he could make something obvious that would last but alas, apparently the Egyptian Pharaohs were more powerful than god, their Pyramids still stand as a testament to their existence. I have traveled to a lot of mountains and climbed up many of them but I have not seen one as intricately or purposefully designed like the pyramids were. 

Yet there are no facts or proven data that support the notion of god.

You can claim anything that you wish, it simply does not mean that it is true. I can claim that the universe seems complex because we are all designed by aliens from another planet that do not want us to learn too much outside of our testing lab : The Earth.   Are you going to buy that claim ? Why not ?

Actually, complexity exists in many things, but the root beginnings of them were quite simple. Take the beginnings of evolution for example.

I have yet to see a better reason. We are using the same arguements here. I am using your logic to show yours to be false while you tell me off for using your logic. Everytime I try to prove God by your logic you tell me it makes no sense. You are telling me that your logic makes no sense.

You have made absolutely no attempt to prove God through logic unless you have another thread going somewhere. I just reviewed all the posts you have made and you have pretty much said "God exists prove to me there is evidence otherwise." You have not addressed any of the direct arguments to your points, the evidence presented that some creator was not required, and you have completely ignored direct questions. So if you have an argument, make it.

No, ppplease, your not going to do it, please dont parrot the bankrupt "look at the mountians, there so pretty and intricate, you wouldn't suspect a statue to have no sculptor" argument for bafoons.

OMFG here we go...

Oh for F**K sakes

This is the biggest load of crap.  This is one of the top theistic arguments that annoys me the most, not for any particular intellectual reason it is just as retarded as some others, but because my mom used this crap to indoctrinate me as child (0-8).  It makes me cringe the level of stupidity and religious dellusion is needed to ACTUALLY say this crap and think it makes good sense, to think your coming off intelligent, to think you are making any form of good argument.  I'm assuming in your church world, this kind of crap is considered good evidence, sickening.   She used to say "look at the trees, look at the mountains, look at the earth, they are so beutiful so intricate, they appear designed, from this we can be sure god exists,"  and "a painting has a painter, and house has a builder, logically the universe has a creator" you know the old Ray Comfort smart as a doberman special.  By 9 years old I had come to my senses on the logic in this crap.  It was very sad when I realised I was smarter and more rational than my mother at 9.   Do you seriously not understand why these are such stupid things to say?  You really don't? 

A)-The earth and universe is a poor design for life, ir is barely good enough, BARELY, if the sun farts were toast.

B)-The way planets, the mountains etc are formed is completey understood.

C)-You can contact the builder of any home, and the painter of any painting (alive anyway, if not...records!!!)

D)-Snow flakes do not have a designer yet they seem designed MUCH MORE THAN A MOUNTAIN

E)-Scultures and rocks don't repreduce

I mean there are so many things wrong with this "things appear designed, sculture in the rocks" argument I cannot imagine how anyone can think it is solid in their own mind.  Truly low level thinking.

Seriosuly this sculpture in the mountain/tornado making a 747 jet=must be creator of all things argument, is so primitve it makes me gag this is as reasonable as some people can think (oh mommy).  We are dealing with a very average minded theist here guys, keep your words short and easy to understand. 

Seriously?  WOW???  We haven't had a brilliant one like this is a while.

ROFLMAO. That was great  No More Crazy People. I almost sprayed my keyboard with coffee reading that one.

Everything after the Big Bang is fairly well covered. You are simply ignorant. Go wiki or google your 2 million random, irrelevant science questions.

Even if we knew absolutely nothing about the universe, you would still have no evidence for God. We are not going to explain every little in the entire universe just so you can parrot your argument from ignorance.

How do they know someone made it?

Reality is deterministic, not random.

The chance of that rock being some specific shape and size is 100%. Based on your logic, everything is a striking coincidence.

Do you consider it to be miracle every time someone wins the lottery?

That's the one that's a naked assertion, an emotionally satisfying religious belief without any justification.

"Chaos" is an undefined, scientifically inept term.

The Big Bang does not assert that "something" comes from "nothing." That is a strawman used by the simple-minded to ridicule what they don't understand.

Introducing a naked assertion with "Fact:" doesn't make it a fact.

Stephen Hawking?

There is a better explanation.

Lack of an alternative explanation doesn't mean God did it. That is an argument from ignorance.   

And I would like to add that it is not only a strawman used by the simple-mided to ridicule what they don't understand, it is ironically exactly what the simple minded theist is positing happened, that "god" made something out of nothing.  That "god" made all the matter and energy in the universe appear from nothing, poof, like magic.   It's fucking hillarious to me that no matter how many theists you explain this to, there just seems to be a larger sea of complete idiots coming around the mountain with their "get a brain morans" signs shouting "something can't come from nothing, something can't come from nothing."  Bwahahaha

Do you not see how deliciously ironic it is req?  You claim that someone is asserting something came from nothing, when no one is except for the dellusional theist.  Do you not see how bankrupt your statement is?  As far as we know pal, "nothing" might not even be possible.  Not knowing forsure doesn't =  god.  I'm sorry but after reviewing all of your posts here, I'm going to have to say you are one of the most simple minded and dimwitted theists we've had through here in a while, it's really not looking good for you.  Your just saying the same old crap, bbboring. You should have tea with my mom, you can discuss how there are no "transitional" fossils, how mountains make you feel, and how evolution is a global conspiracy.  I would call that a dinner for shmucks.

Thanks for coming out.     

Consider the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast:

"Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good."

You should probably do a fact check to and read up on zero point energy etc. and read about time dilation and singularities too...

We are blasting you for using our logic because we know you cant do it.

I am quite sure a pesky hospital gown in a hospital lab where scientist could poke your invisible magical sky daddy shouldn't be a problem. According to you he "poof" suddenly made all this. Surely a simple visit to a lab shouldn't be a problem for an all powerful being?

What you are doing is this:

Naked assertion<=made up formula, or formula used to retrofit to myth<=desired outcome

Here is how good logic works.

Established data=plugged into established formula=projected outcome independent of personal bias

Of course you have to TRY to use our logic and mimic us because the old ways of bible quoting have been established as circular reasoning. Just like you would rightfully see quoting the Koran by a Muslim as circular reasoning.

The problem is that you are trying to stick a myth into modern scientific method. If it doesn't work for believers in Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh, what makes you think plugging your god into modern scientific method will work either?

You have as much chance of convincing us of your god with modern methods as the believers in Thor could convince us that Thor exists by pointing at lightening.

THOUGHTS require a material process to exist. There never was or will be an example of a thought arising out of a non material process, much less one with magical super powers.

YOU claim otherwise. Fine, go work on collecting empirical established, independently tested universal data, set up a model to test this data, then hand it over to independent peer review for independent testing. WHEN you can do that, I am sure you will get a Nobel Prize in science.

So unless your sky daddy wants to show himself now in a lab where we can poke and prod him and take samples, I'd say you have a shitload of homework to do. But don't expect us to do it for you.

 Does anyone realize how little intellectual energy was spent to rally us all?  I mean, he has postulated the intellectual equivalent of a Shard (when you intend to fart but end up shitting yourself) and we all respond as if he were an equal.  My knee jerk reaction is to respond to these comments but something holds me back.  I don't think he would understand any response that I can coherently conceive.  I'm a firm believer in balancing the playing field.

For that reason I propose an experiment.  Since said experiment involves drinking wine, I will volunteer myself as the subject.  I have consumed two glasses of wine, my IQ should be about 40 point below normal (yes it goes in the negatives, hardy har har)... When my wife straps a helmet on me to prevent me from licking the window on the short bus I will prepare my response and present it as an equal.  Perhaps we will establish communication (understand eachother) because all we're doing now is wasting valuable energy on someone that hasn't the intelligence god gave a wooden post. (Invoked gods name -10 more IQ points, this experiment is doing 'good')

I'm going to start with your opening post, and demonstrate the incredible amount of errors you made.

False.

Individuals can do as they please.

Mind your manners.

Your flaw here is that you've gotten too far ahead of yourself.

1- You presume a supernatural godlike figure exists, that transcends time and the laws that pattern our universe.

2- You haven't yet understood that what you presume is only a theory that arises from legend and folklore.

3- Despite 1 and 2, you are willing to proceed with a weak presupposition, based merely on conjecture.

4- Despite 3, you are willing to make a quantum leap even further, and assert that this fantastic legend is an absolute, unequivocal reality, and created the universe, all the matter in it, and established a pattern of laws that govern the energy and matter occupying it, in a predictable manner, and chose to create decay and instability.

Your assertion here is completely false.

Being absolutely convinced of a trandscendent godlike figure being the absolute origin of our universe, without anything more than conjecture, legend and folklore, mixed with circular reasoning, are only possible by a conscious effort to avoid 'reason'.

That's the common mistake that's made too often.

Presuming that because you presume one thing, another individual must be bound by 1 of only 2 options.

1- Presume what you do.

2- Presume something different.

This is an insidious rhetorical device, that creates the illusion that only 2 options are possible to a given scenario.

In my case, the answer to your question is:

3- I don't presume anything in regards to the origins of the universe and life.

I haven't had the need to reconcile it.

I'm inclined to think that perhaps why the answers to the problem have been so elusive, is that the 'problem' itself is a false premise, greatly over simplified, and based on a grand assumption. That assumption being that 'there MUST be a point of origin, EVERYTHING has a starting point'.

Or 'Nothing can come from nothing'.

Those are assertions based on circular reasoning, although they seem completely logical, since they are compatible with our natural world.

What has been proven over and over in regards to humans, is that often, our very knowledge is what prevents us from uncovering undiscovered realities.

If we can hypothesize something, there's potential for it to be correct.

Which can lead us to posit that the universe and life did not come from 'nothing' since 'absolute and complete nothingness' potentially could not occur, or be possible. Therefore, there's potential that the universe always existed.

See what I mean?

You get an infinite loop of possibilities.

I never stated, or implied I haven't gotten around to it. You've made an assumption.

I said I haven't had the need to reconcile it.

I have no idea about the origins of the wheel. I'm completely satisfied with it's mere existence.

My feelings about life and the universe are very similar.

It's actually difficult to articulate my 'feelings' on how life and the universe came to be, or evolved, or whatever.

I actually started a thread about it, http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28761 because it seems I contrast most people in this regard. I don't have an insatiable curiousity in regards to the topic, and I don't have any 'intuitive' feelings on what the 'reality' of life and the universe is.

Maybe it's because I've learned too much for my mind to begin to even contemplate the vastness of the 'problem', and for any strong 'intuition' to have begun to develop.

IMO, the more we learn, the clearer it becomes how vast and difficult to comprehend, the realities of life and the universe are.

What theists propose as 'knowledge' of the origins of life and the universe, clearly demonstrate their lack of scientific understanding of the entire universe, and the vastness of the nonsensical nature of their claim.

You have to take into account what the Bell curve looked like, back then, and understand how easy it was to be intellectually superior, if people nodded in agreement with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" "And God saw that it was good".

Oh ya, that's a profoundly brilliant explanation!

Thanks for clarifying life and the universe for me!

NOT!