Who made god?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"an infinite regression of cause"
Please define "an infinite regression of cause" and provide an example.
@David K. Re: To Reed - "Please define "an infinite regression of cause" and provide an example."
Oo-oo-oo!... *waving hand excitedly*... Let me take a crack at this puppy real quick!
Infinite regression of cause: Nothing never happened to cause anything. And everything never had nothing to do with something.
(Let that sink in a moment. I know, it hurts the brain.... *chuckle*...)
RE: "ALL PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN"
The fact that ALL physics and chemical laws breakdown before the BB and at times t less than the Planks time after the BB reinforces that fact that whatever initiated the creation/expansion of the universe cannot be subject to natural laws. You cannot empirically prove that which you cannot grasp.
RE: "Smartest thing you have said in this thread after 4 pages of complete bullshit"
What's with the raging hormones, bro? You getting emotional?
You don't get to assert creation "CREATION" You don't get to assert "INITIATION." You don't get to assert "SOURCE." You get to assert any of this without facts. You don't get to assert "WHATEVER INITIATED." You have not ruled out an entirely natural processes in any way. "The expansion of the universe can not be subject to natural laws." Please prove your assertion. You can not possibly know what is natural or unnatural beyond Planck time without a crystal ball. I don't have to prove anything. I have made no assertion. All we know is that the universe is expanding and that is validated by nearly all known experiments. Nevertheless; this idea too, is being challenged. "According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all." WE DO NOT KNOW. How hard is that for you to grasp? You do not get to make inane assertions.
"Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space. "
Eric J. Lerner et al. UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, published online May 02, 2014; doi: 10.1142/S0218271814500588
YOU DON'T GET TO JUST BLINDLY ASSERT SHIT. OPEN YOUR EYES AND REALIZE YOU ARE IN DARKNESS JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. STOP PRETENDING IN MONSTERS, GHOSTS AND GODS. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.
You're asking for empirical physical evidence for the one who initiated the laws of physics and chemistry? LMFAO!
Next joke please!
Clearly the next joke is you responding to the request you evidence one of your endless unevidenced claims, by you offering yet another unevidenced claim, then patting yourself on the back, and puffing your chest out as if you've said something profound, rather than just pissed your own pants in the playground, and seem inexplicably proud of it.
Well obviously there is an explanation, you're a trolling moron. I'm not even convinced you're a theist, though you are hardly the first theist to post overly verbose vapid nonsense of course, but your posts just seem to scream trolling clown.
@reedemption: Next joke please! What you have been trying to assert is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may your imaginary God have mercy on your imaginary soul.”
@Tin-Man who do you seek to impress with this long write-up of 1% inquiry and 99% bullshit? As far as I know, i've been twisting you losers in and out with scientific facts. The same science you clowns believe "gat your backs". LMAO. What a farce this is
Ah, yes! The true troll within finally rears it's stinky head... *grin*... Now, I wonder which one of our past puppet masters has his hand up Reed's ass?... Hmmmm... *scratching chin*...
A lot of questions, but one at a time.
Scientifically, could there be other planets in our big bang with human kind of life sort of like us?
@ Red demption
As far as you know....yep. Says it all.
@ Red demption: "As far as I know, i've been twisting you losers in and out with scientific facts." I know what you mean!!! I read the bible once and now I am an expert in physics as well.
I should get a Physics degree? Pretty fucking rich from the same dummy who said this: "The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang"!
Like SMH. What does that even mean?
READ and stop being a FUCKTARD.
"Closed systems cannot exchange matter with the surroundings, but can exchange energy. Isolated systems can exchange neither matter nor energy with their surroundings, AND AS SUCH ARE ONLY THEORETICAL and do not exist in reality (except, POSSIBLY, the entire universe)."
How do you think you know the shit you post? Over and over and over myself and others have told you that you can not know the things you profess to know. You can not know anything about the cosmos. NOTHING You can not yet know if our universe is an open or closed system. The final results are not in.
I cited this with articles. It is not my fault you are opting not to read them. You can not even read a response to one of your inane posts correctly. The only person making inane assertions in the thread is you.,
"The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged!"
Kindly explain yourself
Whatever Cognostic said, how you do you know the Universe was created by your sky daddy? What evidence do you have that the state of the universe point to a creator? What evidence of this creator do you have?
"God" is not created.
GOD is the agency of creation itself (ie. is in/of the creation itself).
The Hebrew word 'god':
el: towardness "bestowing"
im: sea "receiving"
as in a figure 8, reciprocity of bestowing/receiving via a shared conduit (ie. a point of mutual interest) ad infinitum. Therefor, when two conscious beings who contain their own 'I am' establish a connection with one another, their relationship revolves around whatever 'that' is between them. Therefor 'I am that I am' is not a being, it is a state of being assumed by a connected couple wherein 'that' can be anything they both so collectively will, and each 'I am' is... either boundless or bound by an identity.
@reedemption: "The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged!" GO TO A FRIGGING PHYSICS FORUM....
What don't you understand? Do you see the words "May Be" HINT: You do not know.
"The universe is an open or closed system in the thermodynamics sense of the terms. The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. (Cosmos) If there is no outside of it then obviously it is a closed system. I think most people define "universe" in terms that require it to be a closed system, though a few people (i.e. brane-world string theorists) use the term somewhat differently.
GO TO A PHYSICS FORUM. THIS IS AN ATHEIST FORUM. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE EARTH, THE UNIVERSE OR THE COSMOS IS OPEN OR CLOSES - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GOD. NONE.
1. I don't think pointing to a post on another forum as your source can be considered authoritative. It's like me directing someone to a post on reddit that says Robert Downey Jr is the president of America as authoritative info. Not saying physicsforum is a bad site, but like most public forums, it is open to opinion and speculations.
2. I did read d entire thread u cited and d same post u clipped ur snippet 4rm goes on to say the universe is probably closed in answering the posters question. He only put d part u clipped out in other to break down what the OP was trying to mean by his question
Anybody can click the link to fact check and probably just read the full answer.
3. I wasn't really weighing in on whether the universe is a closed system. I just think you have a different understanding of the word cosmos.
No one is arguing that the universe is not "probably closed." Do you know what the word "Probably" means? The argument is "WE DO NOT KNOW." You do not get to assert closed. THAT WAS THE POINT ---- IT'S A PHYSICS FORUM WHERE YOU CAN GO AND DISCUSS YOUR NONSENSE.
1. I don't think pointing to a post on another forum as ur source can be considered authoritative. Not saying physicsforum is a bad site, but like most public forums, it is open to opinions and speculations.
2. I did read d entire thread u cited and d same post u clipped ur snippet 4rm goes on to say the universe is probably closed in answering the posters question. He only put d part u clipped out in other to break down what the OP was trying to mean by his question.
Anybody can click the link to fact check me probably just read the full answer.
3. I wasn't really weighing in on whether the universe is a closed system. I think you have a different understanding of the word cosmos
Re: Reed - "I did read d entire thread u cited and d same post u clipped ur snippet 4rm goes on to say..."
Geez... What the hell is up with the sudden use of ridiculous juvenile texting shortcuts??? That has got to be some of the stupidest and most annoying nonsense indicating that this particular individual is entirely devoid of any interest in serious discussion. Okay, not that I actually believed he was here for genuine discussions in the first place, granted. However, resorting to such ignorantly childish slang when supposedly wanting others to take you seriously pretty much screams, "Ha-ha! I'm just here to be an annoying little trolling piss-ant! Nannie-nannie-boo-boo!"
Although, I suppose I should once again be thankful for "theists" such as this. Because they are definitely a wonderful reminder of why I am so happy I was finally able to escape the smothering grasp of religion and its debilitating effect on the human psyche.
@reedemption re: 1. I don't think pointing to a post on another forum as ur source can be considered authoritative.
IT'S NOT AUTHORITATIVE. It's a physics forum. That is the whole point. Go over there and express your nonsense.
2. Do you know what the word "PROBABLY" means? We do not know!!!!!!
Arguments have flown both ways for decades and no one has yet reached an agreed upon conclusion. Some theories require an Open universe and others a Closed universe. Choose your poison but do not pretend you have the only right answer.
Go post your offal on the physics forum.
Fievel says all this debate over whether or not there's a god seems ridiculous. NOT that I am not open to some scientific evidence of a god, there's just so far none that I can actually find.
Re: Who made god?
I'm gonna take a stab here and say it was the milkman. You see, Grandfather God was always away creating his six-dimensional universes. He would be gone for twleve days, come home and rest for two days, and then head back out for another twelve days to create another universe. Naturally, this was not working out so well for Grandma God, who was always home alone and bored. As a result, Grandma God eventually ended up having a little fling with the milkman. And then - OOPS! - Grandma God had to do some quick-thinking explaining to Grandfather God when she became pregnant with the milkman's baby.
Grandma God told Grandfather God that she had been "Divinely Impregnated" by the God of a much higher level of omniscience and omnipotence. Strangely enough, Grandfather God totally believed her. (Either that, or he just really didn't give a shit.) Anyway, he claimed it was a "miracle", and then immediately left out to go create another universe.
So, roughly about eight eons later, the god we know as Father God was born, and he grew up and eventually created our three-dimensional universe after streamlining Grandfather God's six-dimensional plans. He was even able to create our universe in half the time (six days) with only one day of rest. And everything was actually going pretty good for him for awhile. That is, though, until he messed around and got some young virgin human girl pregnant. Shit just went downhill for him at that point. Like father, like son, I suppose... *shrugging shoulders*...
@WHO MADE GOD: IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR TO ME.