Why is it not this simple??

163 posts / 0 new
Last post
ChildofGod's picture
but see the thing is, is that

but see the thing is, is that im not wrong, i word things differently than you do

ImFree's picture
See, I showed you scripture

See, I showed you scripture above from the new testament approving of slavery and you are avoiding answering. Please acknowledge you are wrong about the bible (new testament included) approves of slavery.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
and encourages obedience of

and encourages obedience of slavery.
do not complain else there might be a chance that slavery is abolished.

see the christian slaves are happy
slavery is a good thing

ImFree's picture
Your wrong, the new testament

Your wrong, the new testament approves of slavery. I gave you the references and now your dancing around it. Your in denial. You have your eyes closed and fingers in your ears. Very typical of theists when evidence in submitted.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I think you put your reply in

I think you put your reply in the wrong place m8

my reply is agreeing with you.
I'm using satire to make your point more obvious.

ImFree's picture
Yes...LOL....saw that, miss

Yes...LOL....saw that, miss fired at the end.....sorry about that.

firebolt's picture
A non-intelligent particle

A non-intelligent particle with supernatural properties? That's an interesting concept that might actually hold some water with some people.

Anurraagg Kumar's picture
We have been at this business

We have been at this business of science for a very very short time. Every major advancement is eventually followed by something that dwarfs it. There's a new hypothesis that dark matters is actually many, many black holes. matthjar's non-intelligent particle with supernatural properties is that undetected-impossible-thing we will find (on paper maybe, the thing probably can't exist and immediately creates a new universe?) maybe a 100 years from now. Yeah, neutrinos are clearly supernatural if you are from the 16th century. What I mean is anything that answers our questions would be natural even if it completely stumps all the Stephen Hawkings. We just cant see beyond the event horizon. We can pretend every black hole has a universe in it if we want. Excuse me if I missed something. Someone please explain this more clearly?

CyberLN's picture
When I hear someone say the

When I hear someone say the answer to any question must be that the cause is "supernatural" it immediately translates in my head to them saying the answer is " I don't know."

Anurraagg Kumar's picture
Exactly. Thats one thing

Exactly. Thats one thing everyone has to learn to say. Wonder, appreciate the mystery but say "I dont know" when you dont.

CyberLN's picture
Yep, act like a scientist! :

Yep, act like a scientist! :-)

Zaphod's picture
To some people it is very

To some people it is very hard to say I don't know, I don't know why...

CyberLN's picture
Easy for you to say....

Easy for you to say.... ;-)

matthjar's picture
I can totally respect the "I

I can totally respect the "I do not know answer" in regards to the existence or absence of the Infinite. It is definitely the easiest to defend between the 3 camps of:

1. The Supernatural exists
2. The Supernatural does not exist
3. I Don't know if it does or not.


matthjar's picture
I agree with everything you

I agree with everything you have said.... and i am trying to understand your final question. Please clarify.... ;-). Interestingly enough all of science involves some kind of "Pretending" that is evident in the original hypothesis. I believe it is safe to say the science requires an imaginative mind that dares to ask the question "What if......"???

CyberLN's picture
A scientific hypothesis isn't

A scientific hypothesis isn't pretending. It is a possible (and probable) explanation for an observation. It is testable. It is an answer for a natural phenomena not currently or completely explained by any other theory. So, saying the tooth fairy exists and leaves quarters under the pillow is pretending, a scientific hypothesis is not.

matthjar's picture
I definitely agree with the

I definitely agree with the possible part but not the probable part. Specially in the case of hypothesis that have been proven false such as the "Earth is Flat" Hypothesis.... of course this is easy for me to say as hindsight sees much clearer than foresight.... ;-).

Spewer's picture
"1. All natural (Finite)

"1. All natural (Finite) things must have a Beginning."

The law of conservation of matter says that, in a closed system, matter can be neither created not destroyed. If you are going to assert an 'outside' cause, then you should be able to show that the universe is not a closed system, so that it would need an external cause. I have not seen anything like that.

"2. Something cannot come from Nothing."

No human has ever observed Nothing (absence of space, time, matter), so no one can make non-speculative predictions regarding what Nothing can or cannot do. It all comes down to an assumption about Nothing. We don't even understand the "something" universe we can observe, much less the Nothing into which our universe appears to be expanding. What we call "Nothing" could well be an entirely different version of "Something" we haven't ever observed. There is simply no way to know, which reveals the completely speculative nature of asserting a supernatural cause. The fact is that we don't actually know what can or can't come from Nothing, because we've never seen Nothing.

"Logically and Rationally a Supernatural (Infinite and Timeless) Force must exist."
Again, this conclusion is based on entirely on assuming what "Nothing" can or can't do, not based on any observation. No human has ever actually observed "Nothing" as in the absence of space or time. We are not in a position to know or even speculate accurately what such "Nothing" would be capable of doing or not doing. What you are accepting as some kind of given is no more than mere speculation not based on any observation. The fact that no human has observed this "Nothing" means that you are, in fact, "just operating from a blind faith and/or irrational(magical) thinking."

"From my perspective most modern Atheist belief..."

'Atheist belief' is a self-contradictory misnomer. Atheism is freedom from belief, not itself a belief.

"In my estimation that does not show that belief in God is evil or even untrue but that humans are such."

Agreed. Belief itself is not evil. Humans can be, and their gods are mere projections. Ancient warlike cultures spawned belief in warlike gods to justify their actions and mores. It all fits together.

Mythlover's picture
Thank you so much for this

Thank you so much for this Spewer! I have been trying to think of how to say that those 2 claims aren't necessarily true, and you put it very eloquently. I will have to remember that reasoning if I ever get into a discussion about this subject.

AtLarryaccomplish Peacegreenjobscongress's picture
I'm disappointed in lack of

I'm disappointed in lack of simplicity here. We scientific humans exist with neighboring matter & it's indwelling property ENERGY. We've observed an expanding universe visible back in time to an alleged BIG BANG.

AtLarryaccomplish Peacegreenjobscongress's picture
drawing a single conclusion

drawing a single conclusion about our observable universe is a great error.

AtLarryaccomplish Peacegreenjobscongress's picture
Our universe could be one of

Our universe could be one of many identical or different universes. A single universe could be cyclical & finite or cyclical but infinite beyond our observations

AtLarryaccomplish Peacegreenjobscongress's picture
All of reality has NOTHING to

All of reality has NOTHING to do with the religious or shamanistic gibberish ideas for what many creationists call gods. I fail to see any implicit bible gods in planetary and stellar observations. The simplest and sanest assumption remains matter is neither created or destroyed as energy is an indwelling property of matter. I'm interested in learning the nature of gravity not enabling gott delusions

VDside's picture
whud91's picture
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Sorry to burst your bubble. But your second postulate is WRONG. Physics has proven that something can come from nothing. Quatum mechanics has shown that to be true for many years now. The most basic experiment was proven as far back as 1948. Here is a link to a basic explanaation:

Also the lastest in cosmology has the big bang being produced in a simialr way. So your basic premise is shot.

matthjar's picture
Very fascinating stuff and

Very fascinating stuff and thanks so much for the link.... i very much enjoyed reading it...... ;-).

After looking over the article however I noticed that....... "the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field."

hmmmmmmm...... Physical forces from a field......

Kind of like a Magnet...... or a motor.... or in this case 2 parallel plates.... maybe i am missing something but how does 2 parallel plates count as "nothing."

whud91's picture
The Casimir Effect is a

The Casimir Effect is a result of quantum physics that seems to defy the logic of the everyday world. In this case, it results in energy from "empty space" actually exerting a force on physical objects.

Zaphod's picture
I would argue that the

I would argue that the Casimir effect does not create energy from empty space but rather from differences in positive and negative flow from one side to the other and the easy conversion of one type of energy to another the electric energy at such short distance between two plates of similar or even differing properties is produced to balance the polarity between say hot and cold, negative and positive, light and dark ect. ect. So in effect the energy is not produced from nothing in the Casimir effect but rather only seems to be. Instead energy is converted and on the other side converted back as long as there is a constant pull or push from one side to the other more electrical energy will be produced and can even be utilized. IN any event like one laid out here it will result in either repulsion or contraction as the plates are charged and resistance between the two differ or come close to parity deepening on the orientation of the conductors used.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Zap explanation is one

Zap explanation is one possibility.
Though I must point out:

What they are calling 'Empty Space" may infarct not be empty at all, but in perfect harmony, so we don't even feel it.
Like oxygen in the air , we don't see it and we don't feel it, but no one can say that it is not there today.
Now, it has been shown that the vacuum energy is infinite or so huge that we had to cut it to be able to quantify it.
1 cm cube of Empty space has more energy then all the suns and black holes we see from the Hubble telescope put together.
So claiming that Empty Space is Nothing is just showing how little one knows about physics.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture


It helps in understanding it.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.