No problemo. The discourse on the internet lends itself to doucheeness.

It was a question that used to blow my mind, until I understood that there could be something eternal. That there never was nothing to begin with, which is in many ways even more difficult to grasp, but for some reason makes plausible sense.

>> ^jmzero:
Let's just say we both mischaracterized eachother, I'm sorry, and move on.
Cool. For my part, I was a douche (as per usual, honestly). I appreciate your comment here. Thank you.
He answered "Why is there something rather than nothing."
I hadn't heard this story before; I very much agree with Hawking on that being a super great question.

Let's just say we both mischaracterized eachother, I'm sorry, and move on.


Cool. For my part, I was a douche (as per usual, honestly). I appreciate your comment here. Thank you.

He answered "Why is there something rather than nothing."


I hadn't heard this story before; I very much agree with Hawking on that being a super great question.

Let's just say we both mischaracterized eachother, I'm sorry, and move on.

What I want to say is that I really admire Stephan Hawking for this theory. I applaud his intellectual honesty. He knows that infinite universe theories, string theory, brane theories, and the like are just so much fluff, that prop up big bang cosomology. That they are just acting as place holders to keep the theory from falling under the shadow of its Ultimate Cause. He knows that time, space and matter had a beginning at the big bang and doubtless he sees the obvious implications of this. But it can't be God, so he takes the denial of a Creation to its natural conclusion. He proposes as the Ultimate Solution to the problem of the Ultimate Cause, the God of atheism, the anti-God: nothing at all. This is the Ultimate Solution for science, to get something from nothing. You see, scientists don't like the big bang theory. It disturbs them. They were much happier when they all believed the Universe had always existed. They don't want to have to deal with this, because a Universe with a beginning inescapably leads to an eternal, transcendent first cause. All Stephan Hawking has done is remain true to their logic and to their denial. He is intellectually honest enough to admit that the big bang strongly implicates God, so since God can't exist, the Universe must have been created by nothing.


Stephan Hawking was asked in an interview that if he could have any one of his questions answered, what would it be? He answered "Why is there something rather than nothing." The sad irony of this question is painful to contemplate. The mental gymnastics he has gone through to deny the obvious fact of Creation just boggles the mind.


>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!"
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded".
And then here:
.before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense.
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.
I said it doesn't make much sense. I still don't think it makes much sense and I still think it's unlikely to be true. But it could be true. I could be wrong.
Maybe you think I'm being a jerk or something, but mischaracterizing my opinions, as you've clearly, clearly done is dishonest. The most charitable thing I can say is maybe you thought I meant something else. I didn't. I meant what I said.
one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely.
He's not a shaper of modern scientific though, despite being famous and having made some important contributions earlier in his career. The reaction to this speech that I see (and to much of what he has said in recent years) is far from "sage nodding". Rather, it was more like "Is he being serious?" - well, except from the press which reacted with predictable mania.
Look, if what you'd said was "some scientists think the Universe came from nothing, and I think that's silly", I would have just agreed with you (as I've done quite a few times in different threads, sometimes when your opinion isn't popular). But you have a continued habit of pointing out speculative science you don't like and arguing against it as though it was established dogma (you've done this here in the past with things like string theory). It really looked like that's what you were doing here.
If what you meant was "some scientists believe x", you have an odd way of saying it:
I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded
Between that, and your previous, repeated derision at the Big Bang theory, I suppose you can excuse me for thinking that's what you thought the scientific consensus was. And if you did understand that this wasn't the scientific consensus, how can you really justify your phrasing above?

I will crush you.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Issykitty:
LOL @ the downvotes. Canadians stickin' up fer eachother!

You want a downvote too, kitty?

@ChaosEngine

The only one out of those that doesn't use prior material is islam, and the creation story from the quron is just a rip off of Genesis, so I don't think it really counts.

As far as the age of the Earth goes, there are plenty of evidences to indicate a young earth just in the fossil record. You have polystrate fossils all over the place, which traverse multiple layers that were supposedly laid down over hundreds of millions of years. You have fossils supposedly millions of years old found with intact DNA, which has a max decay rate of 20 thousand years. You have fossils like these: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/8208838.stm

Radiometric dating is also not proven reliable. It is predicated on a number of assumptions (guesses), such as a constant rate of decay, the amount of the elements, etc. Particularly, it must be assumed to have been within a closed system. Since there is no such thing on planet Earth, there is no way of telling what the original condition of the rock was. Whether it was contaminated by heat, or groundwater, or leeching etc. That makes all such measurements extremely problematic. The different methods used also almost never agree with eachother. Frequently, they provide a wide range of dates which the scientist will cherry pick from to match his particular theory. Radiometric dating has also been proven to be inaccurate by testing on samples that have known ages. Tests run on rocks known to be a few hundred years old will come back with estimates ranging from a few million to over a billion years old. If you can't get reliable results on known ages, how can you trust results on samples with unknown ages?

You have the problem of the geologic column being a complete mess, where layers appear in different places in different parts of the world, sometimes in reverse order. You also have the circular logic of the fossils dating the rocks and the rocks dating the fossils. You have human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata. You even have ancient artifacts found which show human/dinosaur interaction and even domestication.

http://www.mondovista.com/dinostone.ica2.html
http://www.mtblanco.com/ForSale/2006/ICAStones.html

There are many reasons to think that the scientific timeline is grossly inaccurate, and these are just a few of those reasons.

LOL @ the downvotes. Canadians stickin' up fer eachother!

Seems we posted different Gervais Vids within seconds of eachother Ti_Moth

*promote

I hear one can be amused by silly story telling and huge chunks of flesh trying not to hit eachother as they are trying to hit eachother.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence.
I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally.

All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated.

What Dan Savage does isn't sex. It's consensual sodomy. Thats part of what evil does is redefine the meanings of things. The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive. God does not approve of their union, and they should never be married. What they love is sin, and sin is not beautiful. It is an abomination before the Lord.

fornication is just plainly a sin, and for the reason that sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. You are spiritually joined to whomever you have sex with, forever.
maybe you reprobates can't imagine giving up your carnal lusts because its what you're living for, but that lifestyle is meaningless, sad and no better than what animals do.

Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

I'm not surprised by the bias of the sift, nor the childish behavior of its members..I was interested if anyone here had an inherent sense of fairness and could look past their own bias..but I guess not

Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant.

I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell. To me, you might as well be banging rocks together if you don't know you have a soul, or there is a God. People like this are mostly automated because they don't really know how anything works, or that God controls everything.

I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

you can always look back on the glory days when you were a talking turd on the internet..

if he wants to be civil and converse like real people instead of rabid animals, I'll be here.


How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle.

You'll get to mock God for a little while and do what you want, until His mercy runs out and He takes you off of this world. You'll be found guilty at the judgement and then you'll join the devil and his angels in the lake of fire. Do you think you'll think it was worth it then? I'm betting not.

If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong.
Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago.
It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily.

What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

Gay rights? Sinners have no rights, they are a slave to sin. America is becoming more like babylon every day, especially in what it deserves as punishment for its actions.

Apparently homosexual atheists are in force these days.

as usual the sift turns off its brain

I am a highly rational and logical person , who has reasoned these things out to a much deeper level than any of you would be willing to give me credit for

You're entitled to your malformed, tumor-swollen opinion. Mine happens to have biblical justification.

In the context of a bunch of googly eyed mouth breathers saying God doesn't exist, where Satans special little helpers file in to preach their faith, not much is going to come out of this which is positive.

Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

I have better things to do than waste my time arguing on the internet for fun, and it's not fun to argue.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.

You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless,
He was in fact just an arrogant, prideful being who wanted all the power for himself.

One day, people will thank me for opening their mind up to how they've been lied to every day of their life and indoctrinated into a world system thats literally trying to drag them straight to hell.

Satan has you.

You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.



Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.



>> ^shinyblurry:

You think you were sent by God? Try again..
And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day.

Well, God created everything..but before the fall there wasn't anything harmful. Food was plentiful, animals were tame, and bacteria was benign. It's part of the corruption and the curse that we have disease and everything else.

>> ^acidSpine:
Sin created smallpox? Be serious
>> ^shinyblurry:
Should a parent by liable for giving birth to a child that turns out to be a murderer? That video is awful, but humans aren't camel spiders..they don't have to attack and hurt eachother. They know by their conscience what is correct behavior and have a choice to do good or not.
Before sin entered the world, there weren't any natural disasters or diseases. When the creation fell, all of those things came with it. In the last days, the increase of natural disasters and plagues and such are directly correlated to the increase in sin. It is one of the signs of the last days when there start to be a greater than normal amount of them.
I'm not sure what you mean by your example. That just demonstrates the inequity of mankind, and its not as if anyone is unreachable by God. Those children aren't forever doomed. In any case, the situation on Earth would be far different if people actually followed the rules. People think about the law in terms of punishment but it is there to moderate our behavior. To compel us to act according to our better natures. If people followed what Jesus taught there simply wouldn't be any inequity in this world.

Sin created smallpox? Be serious
>> ^shinyblurry:

Should a parent by liable for giving birth to a child that turns out to be a murderer? That video is awful, but humans aren't camel spiders..they don't have to attack and hurt eachother. They know by their conscience what is correct behavior and have a choice to do good or not.
Before sin entered the world, there weren't any natural disasters or diseases. When the creation fell, all of those things came with it. In the last days, the increase of natural disasters and plagues and such are directly correlated to the increase in sin. It is one of the signs of the last days when there start to be a greater than normal amount of them.
I'm not sure what you mean by your example. That just demonstrates the inequity of mankind, and its not as if anyone is unreachable by God. Those children aren't forever doomed. In any case, the situation on Earth would be far different if people actually followed the rules. People think about the law in terms of punishment but it is there to moderate our behavior. To compel us to act according to our better natures. If people followed what Jesus taught there simply wouldn't be any inequity in this world.

Should a parent by liable for giving birth to a child that turns out to be a murderer? That video is awful, but humans aren't camel spiders..they don't have to attack and hurt eachother. They know by their conscience what is correct behavior and have a choice to do good or not.

Before sin entered the world, there weren't any natural disasters or diseases. When the creation fell, all of those things came with it. In the last days, the increase of natural disasters and plagues and such are directly correlated to the increase in sin. It is one of the signs of the last days when there start to be a greater than normal amount of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by your example. That just demonstrates the inequity of mankind, and its not as if anyone is unreachable by God. Those children aren't forever doomed. In any case, the situation on Earth would be far different if people actually followed the rules. People think about the law in terms of punishment but it is there to moderate our behavior. To compel us to act according to our better natures. If people followed what Jesus taught there simply wouldn't be any inequity in this world.


>> ^acidSpine:
Check out this awful fucking video
Two-camel-spiders-fight-to-the-DEATH
Can It be said that the person who put those two things in that box bears no responsibility for the terrible events that follow?
One other thing the free will argument for evil fails to address is evil humans couldn't possibly be responsible for ie. Earthquakes and tsunamis. How about smallpox and malaria were they really necessary?
As for original sin, what a load of herpes. Just say you go nuts one day and shoot a bunch of Amish and yourself. So state just takes all your kids and their kids and locks them up in a prison full of the children of other criminals whereupon they remain forever including all the babies born inside.
For a god that can "only do what is logically possible" he sure makes a lot of irrational decisions

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Neil seems to be a pretty beautiful human being.

I want him and Stephen Fry in the same room...sexing eachother!


"Shoot your hot science all over my face!"