What do you think the best explaination to how we got here is?
Offline Do you believe that, as the law of Coservation states, no energy can be created or destroyed, so energy was always here? That energy always changes it's size and shape? I think that is a great atheist explaination to how we got here...but does any evidence support it? I am just wondering.
If you have a better way to explain how we got here without saying "God/Zeus/Thor/Chucky Cheeze did it", what is it? Thanks!
Support our voice in politics by voting for the question "Is America unofficially a Theocracy?" at http://www.communitycounts.us/debates so it can be asked live at the CNN/YouTube debates!!
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm the first to admit that I put most of the books I start to read down before I'm halfway through. Theoretical physics books, I mean. So I am happy to admit that I'm not current on cosmological theory.
When it comes up in debate, I pretty much keep pointing out that "god" doesn't solve any problems for cosmologists, and leave it at that.
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer for me, and in the end, it's exactly what theists are saying, too. They just call it god. They say god made the universe, but then you ask them to say what caused god, and they just poke at the sand with their big toe for a few seconds before saying that he "just exists." God is not an answer at all, if you think about it. It's simply a very convoluted way of declaring complete ignorance.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I completely agree. I do not understand physics either, and theists just use "God" as an answer to questions that have no official answer.
Support our voice in politics by voting for the question "Is America unofficially a Theocracy?" at http://www.communitycounts.us/debates so it can be asked live at the CNN/YouTube debates!!
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree with Hamby that "I don't know" is a pefectly acceptable answer. It's also the only correct answer with our current knowledge.
Though, I'm more open to ideas that don't involve magic and the secret santa cosmology.
The paper read yesterday, the earth exploded, nobody noticed the passing of this hapless planet.
- Login to post comments
I came by bus
seriously though, do you mean the Universe in general, Life in general or our species in particular
"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens
Universe, I believe in Natural Selection and evolution for sure.
But creation of the universe? What do you think? I already stated my idea.
Support our voice in politics by voting for the question "Is America unofficially a Theocracy?" at http://www.communitycounts.us/debates so it can be asked live at the CNN/YouTube debates!!
I very much wish that people would stop abusing the first law of thermodynamics:
The universe is not infinite, did not always exist, did spring forth at a cutoff point, there is no "what do you think" about this, only fact:
Essay: Lies damn lies and false beliefs about ex nihilo aka how to pretend you know cosmology without really trying
[MOD EDIT - created link to shorten width of page]
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The physics community has had that view destroyed for so long, It displays the ignorance level of a theist to invoke it, and they will call you out on that.
What?
No, it isn't. It is terrible. Never use it. Ever.
[quote
but does any evidence support it? I am just wondering.
It has been disproved by BB cosmology.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism