The Atheistic View On The Wheel, Life, The Universe, And God

the word atheist was derived from the original greek word 'atheos' consisting of a-"without" and theos-"god" literally meaning disbelief in God. the atheist claims that the only rational and open minded thinking is from their side, and quantify the belief of the 'christian' to nothing more than a belief in "made up" and "mythical" creatures from history. I have also often, in atheistic argument, encountered the odd bunny, often pink, and who's apparent location somewhere in space helps this 'rational' argument.


the atheistic argument always starts with "you can't prove there is a god". they then assure you that the only 'rational' and 'logical' conclusion would be "there is no god". for them, not being able to prove there is no God, is shot down with the 'logical' reply "you cannot prove a negative". this type of atheistic 'logic' is in fact the exact reason why one cannot exclaim "there is no God!" but this is ignored entirely. socrates said "the only true wisdom is in knowing we know nothing". there can never be evidence that there is no God! It is the ultimate fairytale of belief, it can never have substantiating proof! thus such a statement is made in complete willing and admitted ignorance.

with the pink bunny now back from space, and firmly held in the hands of the atheist. you will then be told clearly, that being an atheist means: they do not claim to know everything, so 'they' do not stop searching . they fail to notice that they undergo a conversion from atheist to agnostic, and then uses this convenient change in their 'belief' in order to imply that creationists are not interested in science, and truth, and that is why we still believe in 'fairy tales' such as God, and pink bunnies in space. that i have come to find is the apparent convenience of 'non belief', you can then jump from belief to belief in order to suite your argument. that is again not as much atheistic as it is indecisive cowardice.

regardless of anything one might say to the atheist, you will be told that there is no proof that God exist, and no proof that he made this universe, and no proof that he made life on this planet. they will tell you that science explains everything and will one day explain this too. i have often thought if this type of thinking is applied to something like the wheel, then we cannot possibly ever say that it was man who made the wheel. we use a lot of things we didn't make! we use water ,minerals, and plants. So the fact that we use the wheel, cannot prove that we invented the wheel. Why can we assume that man did in fact make the wheel? Well all the wheels that has been found from ancient time till now, bare the marks of human creation, it has the imprint of human design and the markings of human creation. similarly we can look at the world, nature, and the universe, and see the immense glory, and power, and precision necessary to create all of what we see, and of which we understand so little.


but can we as believers present proof for the existence of God? can there be proof that God made this universe. some people believe 'time, space and matter had a beginning due to a cause', some people believe in a non causal universe where 'time, space and matter began from nothing', a popular view is a cyclic universe where 'time space and matter is eternal and just cycles from one universe to the next in an eternal cycle with no beginning or cause'. every possible universe even the multi-verse hypothesis would still have to follow a causal, non causal or cyclic scenario.


the non causal universe is currently being proposed by some physicists, they ask you to believe that nothing made all of this due to the inevitable force of gravity. they will ask you to accept their redefining of nothing, so as to have it not represent nothing but rather a empty vacuum filled with quantum energy. they do not establish the possibility of a non causal universe but rather refuse to look towards the cause, stating that it does not pertain to science. this is not proof more than the typical atheistic denial.

the cyclic universe, or eternal universe is not only the most 'godly' dependant system {due to it's need for a constant and controlled force to negate the proven effects of entropy.}, but is also logically impossible. The concept of infinity is not one that can be measured inside a universe of time, if you have an infinite amount of time in front of any event, that event can never happen, for the preceding infinity will never end.


thus the logical conclusion would have to be that there was a beginning of time space and matter. as these three necessities for our universe is a part of this universe they too will need a cause. it would thus be a cause not bound by it's creation time, not confined by it's creation space, and obviously due to the fact that this cause would be outside the laws of nature, it must then be all powerful. entropy would suggest that for our system of the universe to contain the amount of matter and energy that we can see in the universe there has to be a force applied to the system much greater than the resultant effect! this we can see in the remnant viewable by the wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe from nasa. it shows levels of energy of up to 75% more than we can account for by looking at the known universe.

this is a described by scientist as the light viewable from the initial start of the universe, so far red shifted that it is only visible in microwave radiation! thus God created the the beginning of time, space and matter, and God said “let there be light” we can view that moment of creation today.

this fundamental proof of the existence of God, and His creation, and our ability to read an accurate account of creation in the Bible. this is still not accepted as proof. the atheist would prefer to believe in dark energy and dark matter to account for 95% of their universe, and that all of this came about from nothing with no reason and no cause.


this atheistic type of belief system is then exactly the childish fantasy they love accusing others of. they ask the world to stop believing 'fantasy' and practice 'logical' thinking, they ask you to replace faith in a creator for assumptions about nothing.

reaperofface reaperofface
31-35, M
5 Responses Sep 20, 2012

And all I know is that yours and Cantain A's arguement lost me in the first sentence with that whole Entropy Theory. But....................... All Capatian A's infinite wisdom and mathmatics is just that. Theory. NONE of us know 100% for sure what is out there beyond our own human technology. Math and Physics have limitations. Who do you think gave us the abliltiy for scientific reasoning? But Entropy is a very simple fact like you say. You cannot argue that!

Thank you for that awesome explanation! But what ever happened to the true meaning of faith? This is something the atheists don't have. The belief in something you cannot see. and in my humble little ol' opinon, that's what makes christians stronger today, than when Jesus walked the planet.

for the sake of CaptainA and the like minded atheist:

Let it never be said i don't try and keep an open mind. :o) I went to study up on your whole problem with disorder as it relates to entropy :o) Lets try and discuss entropy without mentioning disorder :o) will that make you happy?

Entropy pertains directly to the amount of energy in a system to perform work. Thus the viewable work done in any system points to the force that was the result of the work done. Thus the result of the universe is also due to a force! This force has to be outside of the universe! Thus have all the qualities of God!
{note no mention of disorder :o) are you happy?}

Lets look at your big bang,:(please feel free to correct me wherever you want)

----"eternity of time(impossible but whatever)"
----Big Bang!(a singularity of immense energy that rapidly expands faster than the speed of light(so light is a constant unless it suits the theory?maybe light is not a constant! Only how we observe it in our reference frame?)
----this rapid expansion then turns this energy into matter with absolutely no explanation how this is possible but at least it fits e=mc^2 where light speed is again a constant (sounds exactly like atheistic reasoning to me:o)
----then the absolutely weak force called gravity then manages to be such a great force that it can counteract this rapid expansion but only in localized areas mind you to start forming stars(note in the mean time only hydrogen and helium have been fused in the intense heat of the big bang! Now stars form? Do you understand the a star is not comprised of helium and hydrogen? The two elements on their own cannot form the star needed to fuse the further elements up to iron!?)--------

what do we know so far?:an unexplained energy, traveling unexplainable fast, was inexplicably stopped and reversed in localized areas by an unexplainable large force of gravity, in order to form inexplicable stars (that really is a solid theory! Almost cant see why I don't believe it! I mean these physicist where there were they not? They should know! After all the maths can't be wrong!)

why we should listen to what physicists say!: Steven Hawking says! “One cannot ask whether the model represents reality. Only whether it works” for those boys and girls who are often referred to as idiots! That means: Reality does not matter if the math works!

--------all these stars are now not moving as fast as the initial expansion(also unexplained)
----but still rapidly moving apart then gets acted upon again now in stellar quantities to draw together to form galaxies! But the particles this time does not converge and collapse in due to gravity but rather collects together and then starts dispersing(dark energy right? So the universe switches on and off the hubble constant, gravity and dark energy in the correct places and sequence to form all these systems :o)
----these galaxies then move apart in ever increasing speed (thank you dark energy) yet some of these galaxies are suborn! And they are moving towards one another!(pesky gravity!) SOMEONES PLAYING WITH THE BUTTONS! And this will last an eternity. Thus in the cosmic perspective there is no ENTROPY!

WOW that is a brilliant theory based on wild speculation, faulty observations, crappy assumptions, and idiotic reasoning :o)

Lets see the problems we encounter in this model

chemical evolution is not explained:(how does hydrogen and helium form the elements needed for stars?)
cosmic evolution is not explained:(how does galaxies and solar systems form?)
I point you to Genesis 1:
"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So what does science say?

well regardless of what you want to believe time had a beginning. time is a fourth measure of space, the two are independent from one another. space again is only required if there is matter to place inside of the space. If the universe started from an infinitesimal region Its means that the universe came from nothing! You are welcome to postulate your eternal cyclic universe if you could explain how the forces maintain full energy in this closed system!(this system is most God dependent for it will need the external force for the closed "machine" of the universe to keep running! If it did overcome the impossibility of time being eternal it would need eternal external energy to maintain the system! NO SYSTEMS ANYWHERE generate more energy than they consume! Your welcome to disprove this! for you have to in order to even speculate about an eternal universe! WAKE UP!

but science says when we look at the distant light from the BEGINNING of the universe then it will consume everywhere in the universe no matter where we look! this will be so red shifted as to appear as microwave radiation! thus in The BEGINNING of the UNIVERSE(time, space and matter) and God said let there be light!

you will note that liquid is a state of matter :o) and in fact experiments in zero gravity has shown some really interesting results!

Water Observations - An analog to planetary accretion processes was demonstrated using a plastic bag, sugar, tea grains and water. The particles (e.g., tea leaves) were suspended in water, then manipulated and photographed. The ?planetary? accretion (increase in the mass of object by the collection of surrounding ?interstellar gases and objects? by gravity) of the particles in microgravity was observed.

So particles in liquid explain how stellar bodies clump together? you will note that when these particles are not in water they gradually disperse (apparently scientist think this is due to an effect of entropy though still implying the "dark energy" force responsible! (whatever) Fact remains the only way we can get these particles to clump together is when they are submerged in water (again seems genesis got it right!)

God also stretched out the heavens :o) {not dark energy, that you cannot see, detect or measure} so today we can see that stretch in the starlight we observe from the past! God then made some of the galaxies move closer to one another in that stretch just to prove the Big bang theory and the hubble constant that gave birth to it WRONG!

anything else you don't understand? I'll dumb myself down if it means you reach understanding! :o)

How many times do I have to explain entropy to you people? NO godlike force is required for it (even if it were, why not any of the other HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of gods that mankind has made up?) Entropy is heat loss from within systems that only applies to things WITHIN the universe. It occurs because the universe is expanding and the heat/energy is used to fill the new space. The universe as a whole is not subject to entropy, but is the cause of it.

We can safely assume that man made the wheel because we A) know that man exists, B) know that man has both the capacity and ability to make wheels, and C) have never witnessed this capacity in any other living creature.

Likewise, your view of infinity is... unfortunate, based on faulty logic, and not applicable. As far as we know, time only occurs within the universe. The universe as a whole is not subject to it, because time as we understand it only occurs within the universe and is a function of the same.

And, honestly, you should note that, when it comes to ANY made-up god other than the made-up one you decided to believe in, you ask people to disbelieve despite all of their own evidence as well. We are just honest enough, with ourselves and each other, to recognize that all of them are equally made up. Stories. Fiction to explain things. Theism is in it's last gasps, and that is why people like you are so keen to shoehorn your own personal beliefs in an argument and call it logic.

Entropy states: Over time the disorder in a closed system will tend to increase due to the law of entropy, in order to stop entropy an negate it you need force independent of the system applied on the system with more work done than the resultant effect in the system can account for. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are welcome to indicate anything in nature that does not follow this law! or any proof to suggest that my understanding of the law is wrong! the fact remains that everything we observe and test in nature firstly follows the law of cause and effect! to assume that time, space and matter does not is an ignorant assumption made against all we know in science! Eternity CANNOT reside inside time and that is a FACT. you are also welcome to bring evidence to point that this is wrong, or faulty reasoning! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVEN FACT:the universe cannot occur without a cause! (proof to the contrary welcome) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVEN FACT:all systems everywhere follow the law of entropy! Entropy cannot be negated internally! and entropy cannot use an external force without a mechanism!(example:chlorophyll in plants-you are welcome to show me other mechanisms in nature that can use the sun's energy this way! especially how living cells use the suns energy to their benefit! - this would make a huge leap to explain how the suns energy on the earth could possibly help to negate entropy to cause life and then to make it evolve! -There is no mechanism except chlorophyll) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDUCTIVE FACT:If the cause of the universe created time it must be outside of time thus eternal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDUCTIVE FACT:If the cause of this universe created space then it is not confined by space thus omnipresent! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDUCTIVE FACT:If this force created matter and the laws that govern the universe then this force is super natural! and not confined by natural concept of power! thus All Powerful -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDUCTIVE FACT:The complexity found in all of creation from the construction of a single cell to the way stellar bodies move, even down to the quantum level their is a clear indication of immense intellect! So much in fact that we as humans still have not even scratched the surface of the knowable universe! I don't even mention the unknowable of the universe because we can only ever speculate on things like star formations or planet formation! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are welcome to present proof that any of what has been said here is a lie or misrepresented! you can please refer me to observable and testable science that contradicts what i have said! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
note: the "they say" type of argument just points to you not knowing what your talking about! Give references to your claims! also pointing to fluffy animals in space will also not count as proof unless you wish to prove such animals do in fact exist! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical Notes (p. 33).
"A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more different kinds of things it relates, and more extended is its areas of applicability.
Therefore, the deep impression, which classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that, within the framework of applicability of its concepts, it will never be overthrown". (
I understand your wish that theism is at it's last gasps, I put it to you that people have said that all throughout the last 2000 years! you cannot replace God in your simplistic understanding of the universe! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see an atheist bring proof of their claims for once! Or are you merely gonna keep saying "they say so!" or even better "you say so" please enlighten me where my concept of Entropy is faulty! And back up what you say with facts! Because out of the mouth of an atheist i hardly get any facts EVER! the "we're clever, your stupid" argument only flies when you can prove your intellect, and then disprove the intellect of the other person! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you are making the positive claims without any evidence, with a complete misunderstanding of the concept of entropy, time, and causality. Here is a resource you might understand regarding entropy as it applies to the universe: . Entropy as a scientific concept has nothing to do with disorder. It is all about thermodynamic heat loss, which only occurs WITHIN the universe, not without. The universe itself is the cause of entropy, not subject to it. And again, YOU have to prove that the universe requires a cause. You can only make that assumption IF you pre-assume, without evidence, that the universe is not eternal in the first place. Your inability to understand basic concepts of physics is not proof of anything. YOU have to prove a cause before any of your arguments can be made. You cannot do this, so your further assumptions have no merit. Stop trying to use science and logic, neither of which you have functional understanding of, to force people to prove negatives. Nothing works that way. To do so is childish. Further resources:

your circular reasoning will not get you out of the hole! you can claim what entropy is not till your blue in the face! the fact remains entropy is exactly what it is! you not understanding the concept does not make it hard to grasp! The concept is quite simple! If you have a system that does work, the system by itself will do nothing or deteriorate over time unless energy is applied, and controlled by a mechanism no negate the natural entropy of the system! If you do not understand that that Entropy lead to disorder then i refer you again to the first link... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of "disorder" (the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder).[4][9][10][12][13][14][15] This definition describes the entropy as being proportional to the natural logarithm of the number of possible microscopic configurations of the individual atoms and molecules of the system (microstates) which could give rise to the observed macroscopic state (macrostate) of the system. The constant of proportionality is the Boltzmann constant." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your more than welcome to show that this is wrong! or wrongly interpreted! You'll have a hard time selling your "thinking" to general science as most All scientists agree on the principle of entropy! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as for your concept of eternity! Your clearly stubborn beyond reason! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)How long is an eternity? (2)If there is an eternity preceding an event can that event then ever happen? (3)if it's then a cyclic process of eternity even if that was possible! you will need to continuously add external energy to the system to negate HEAT DEATH! THINK!!!!! Eternity is not a concept of TIME! you sucking it out of your *** that eternity is a concept of time is ridiculous and clearly impossible! unless your a suborn atheist! Let;s see your links! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the first one is absolutely brilliant! ?un biased opinion clearly! LOL that's like me giving you Bible scripture! *G* but ok lets see what this idiot says...
"In rational philosophy, by the term 'universe' we mean the totality of all existence." ok i'm gonna give you the oxford definition for the word universe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of universe

1 (the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

2a particular sphere of activity or experience: the front parlour was the hub of her universe

3 ( Logic also universe of discourse)another term for universal set.


late Middle English: from Old French univers or Latin universum, neuter of universus 'combined into one, whole', from uni- 'one' + versus 'turned' (past participle of vertere) ( ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say this continuously to Atheist but you understand the concept the least of any other human! you CANNOT change the meanings of word to support your stupid argument! carrying on about Mr Slick not defining the term universe is clearly the tactic of lost atheist desperately holding on to his hopes and dreams, regardless of how irrational that type of thought process is ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clearly on this definition the idea of something existing outside the universe is meaningless, for it has no reference: there is no "outside" the universe" That is the exact typical atheistic argument trying to justify not looking towards the existence of the universe! whatever you wish to define it as! Did you even read Mr Matt Slick's article? I suggest you listen to William Lane Craig Now that my friend is sense! please feel free to comment on what my expert has to say about your idea of a non causal universe or the stupid Stephen Hawking view of not looking to the cause because It falls outside of the universe! That remains idiotic at best! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""entropy argument" is an attempt, whether theists are willing to recognize it or not, to validate the metaphysical primacy of consciousness, which is a false view of reality." the problem with this type of idiocy will always be that you then have to prove the "reality" that you are suggesting is real! You cannot know enough about the universe to make such a claim! So it can only ever be in ignorance! I don't know why the author says "whether theists are willing to recognize it or not, to validate the metaphysical primacy of consciousness" For it is that exact reason why any theist will bring up the argument! Because the universe is a closed system It like all closed systems in the universe needs external force to negate entropy! so even in your idiotic eternal universe! you still need the external force to maintain the energy in the system! you can run around the facts all you want! IT REMAINS FACT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"but that consciousness, to be rational, must conform to reality." can i then deduce that as this author and you contest the reality of entropy then you are not rational and not fully conscious? Intellect my friend has nothing to do with rational thought! many people have proved that over history! so again your author knows nothing of the subject! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since the aim of the "entropy argument" is to derive a conclusion which is inconsistent with the metaphysical primacy" now your author is making assumptions on his previous false premises ? The entropy argument proves that the universe cannot exist independent of an external force! this is true of ALL closed systems! WAKE UP!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can only imagine that it's this type of idiotic logic that wins your inquisitive mind "but it is not certain whether they are aware of - let alone understand - the first law of thermodynamics. This Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly then, the notion that the universe was "created" is in explicit violation of this Law. Yet theists seem either unconcerned by this, or completely unaware of it." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
try and follow : first law (law of this universe-made with the universe not before it) says matter can not be created or destroyed within the system. It can only change form.----- from there the second law is derived that says this change is is in one direction ONLY! In the direction of disorder due to randomness! Thus! heat death occurs due to the inevitable and randomness of the inefficient system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now If the force that needs to be outside of the universe to either cause the universe or to maintain the eternal universe is not bound by the laws inside the system! why then bind this external force with the laws that He himself made? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a computer quanitfy the programmer into computer code? If the computer code says that the program cannot edit the computer code! does that mean the programmer cannot edit it either? that's idiotic reasoning! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot see that then i cannot help you! your atheistic author clearly will never understand it as he is completely blind to the idea of God! That is not open minded and wise! that is close minded and foolish! I'm not going to read your first author anymore because he has clearly proven not qualified in the discussion! Lets check your second link! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok i will also not go through your BIASED links either! can you maybe point me to a scientific article by a scientist that makes the same claims your atheists always make? why do i find it only on the atheistic websites? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this is not religious this is science! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can assue all you want but you quoting from your atheistic Bible has as much value as me quoting from my bible! The only difference is My Bible has proven It's credentials these idiotic authors for the most part have not! and those who have aproach the argument from the atheist view point and not from the scientific knowledge we have viewed, studied, observed, and tested -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Entropy as you and your author suggests pertain only to Heat specifically in the "confined" definition you give for energy! What accounts for the disorder in decaying plant matter? Or decaying radioactive isotopes? What causes organic material as well as inorganic material to decay over time! this is clear disorder in the molecules and structures, If this is not Entropy please define! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to science! here we don't eat the dribble from the narrow minded atheist we see what the world of Science truly says! your welcome to quote any scientific papers to back your idiotic notions you have claimed as fact! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask you what i ask all Atheist (note i still do not have an answer!) If you knew half of the entire universe, Would it be possible for God to be in the half you do not know about? How much of the universe do you know anyway? by your understanding of entropy and closed systems as well as eternity and time I would think you do not know too much? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please feel free to correct me with rational reasoning and scientific proof :o)

Ok, so you are just an idiot. Mechanical entropy, cosmological entropy and mathematical/statistical entropy are three separate concepts. None of which, by the way, have ever been applied in any meaningful way to the universe at large. Again, eternity as a measure of time is just for our benefit, so we can wrap our brains around a linear existence. Time, and especially linear time are products of motion WITHIN the universe. They are functions of it's existence, not parameters by which it functions. And none of the sites I gave you were 'atheistic' sites. One was general philosophy, two were astrophysics, and the other was general physics. And you sent me a link to a citation page to a paper which has nothing to do with universal entropy, but entropically biased systems within our own world, specifically in the realm of chemical engineering. This could not possibly have less bearing on the concepts at hand. It's fairly obvious you've never actually studied these concepts, nor do you have any understanding of how basic science works. And yes, it is always possible that "god" exists in the spaces we don't know about. But so could Zeus, Thor, Amon Ra, Ahriman, Vishnu, and the Great Gazoo. So there is no reason to suppose that any one does without supposing all of the others, because there is no positive evidence of their existence. And, again, for the thinking impaired, to suppose an outside force that exists to negate entropy, YOU have to prove that such a force is necessary. And, as I have explained, entropy is entirely a function of universal expansion, and not the cause of it. Entropy (heat loss within closed systems in physics terms -- the trend toward disorder only applies to statistical mechanics) does not affect the universe as a whole, because the average temperature over space of the universe declines directly in proportion to it's growth. When average universal temperature reaches a point where [Average temp/total size of universe < (1/(growth rate of the universe)^2) * total energy present in the universe] then rapid contraction of the universe occurs, collapsing into a singularity moments before the next big bang. Of course, all life will be long gone by then, and all matter converted into energy. Being as how there is only a certain amount of energy in the universe, once it expands to exactly beyond the point described above, the amount of energy in the system (the universe) remains the same, but only decrease in relation to the overall size of the universe. E/(G*t) or, energy divided by the growth rate of the universe times the age of the universe is the most simple expression of this. E is a constant in universal terms, and can be expressed simply as 1. G*t will always be a fraction as long as the universe is expanding. E/(G*t) >1 means universal expansion, E/(G*t)=1 means heat death, and E/(G*t)<1 means nearly instantaneous contraction to a singularity. Keep in mind that the transition from E/(G*t) > 1 to E/(G*t) < 1 will occur in less than a billionth of a second, given that G describes an exponential process, i.e., the older the universe gets, the faster it grows. If there were an extra-universal force keeping entropy in check, then entropy in any form would not exist, or would constantly be cycled outwardly by the opposing force. We know that neither is true. Don't argue astrophysics with simple newtonian concepts. They largely do not apply here. First, if you want to talk scientifically, you HAVE TO PROVE THE NEED FOR A CREATOR. Second, you dismiss all science you don't like, then use the rest incorrectly to try and make a point, never giving evidence for your claims, but demanding evidence from every one else. Then, when it's presented, you dismiss it without reading the majority of it. Could you be any more chickenshit?

always funny how people like you think calling someone else an idiot makes it true. lets check your reasoning
"no form of entropy have been applied in a meaningful way to the universe?"
lets check back with wiki :o) ( "Thus, the fact that the entropy of the universe is steadily increasing, means that its total energy is becoming less useful: eventually, this will lead to the "heat death of the Universe"."
guess they're not talking about "mechanical, cosmological mathematical or statistical entropy"
I thought i'd show you some maths seeing as your sooooo clever :o)
summary: (over time more energy would be needed in a closed system to negate the entropy)
I know maths isn't your strong point so lets move to what people who know more than you have to say:
The word entropy is sometimes confused with energy. Although they are related quantities, they are distinct.
As described in previous sections, energy measures the capability of an object or system to do work.
Entropy, on the other hand, is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. What "disorder refers to is really the number of different microscopic states a system can be in, given that the system has a particular fixed composition, volume, energy, pressure, and temperature. By "microscopic states", we mean the exact states of all the molecules making up the system.
this person did some maths on black hole entropy (
"Percolation of the high entropy phase occurs if gravitons are
ever in a thermal state with temperature above Tc0
, either
because they were born hot at the Planck epoch or because they
were thermalized due to interactions with thermal matter."
Let me make that last bit easier for you to understand...{the gravitons are either born hot at the epoch
or they gained their thermal state die to an external process (in this case the interaction of thermal matter)}
So even when you look at black hole entropy the law stays exactly the same!
Negative entropy is a measure of the usefulness of the energy. Gravitational energy and the kinetic energy of large moving objects is completely usable. Heat energy is not, because the directions of the motions of the particles have been scrambled. That's what we call heat. And temperature is a measure of the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. When you panic stop on the freeway, the kinetic energy of your large moving vehicle gets scrambled to heat by friction in the brake drums and the brake shoes, the tire and the road. If you could unscramble it, it would once again be the kinetic energy of your large moving vehicle.
( Do you understand yet why entropy directly relates to disorder? or will your atheistic mind just not let you see the truth?
same web site: "Similarly, stars are formed when clouds of gas and dust collide because the entropy goes up as the energy of falling is transformed to heat. (Stars are not hot because of nuclear fusion at the core. They are hot because the energy of falling has been transformed to heat. The heat released by fusion simply keeps them from collapsing farther and thus getting too hot. But it's only temporary.)

Locally, within the Universe, the entropy goes up. However, for the Universe as a whole, the entropy may not go up. The observable Universe has a border, some fifteen billion light years distant in all directions, imposed on us by what is called "the expansion." It is imposed on the observer by the fact that all the distant objects appear to be moving away."
So entropy seems to be a very large part of the universe :o) even though you say it's not AGAIN with no science to back it up :op
Now for my favorite topic TIME: "Again, eternity as a measure of time is just for our benefit"
An eternity is a measure of time? then i'm sure you can tell me how long an eternity is?
If i say it will be an eternity before you become smart! that literally means that you will never be smart. because an eternity is a infinite measure! you cannot measure infinity in a finite constraint such as time!
you are welcome however to measure eternity for me if you'd like! LOL
as for your links not being atheistic lets do the first! i guess this is the one you call the philosopher!? LOL "Examining CARM's "Entropy Argument"
By Dawson Bethrick" Let's see who Dawson Bethrick is! :o) (
Obviously this idiot is an atheist! If you think he is not and he is a biased philosopher then you are ignorant to who this person really is! you want me to go through your other sites too? I think i'll take your clearly trustworthy word and assume those sites are not biased! then they're just wrong :o)
"It's fairly obvious you've never actually studied these concepts, nor do you have any understanding of how basic science works."
Your quite right! i do not go around studying Entropy! Many scientists over the years have devoted their time to entropy! And they have all come the same conclusions! :o) you can try and change it now if you want but i am happy with their work :o)
I do however study physics, quantum mechanics, general science, philosophy, religions, and the Bible. I can explain special and general relaticity and i can at least bring your mind to understand the basics of quantum physics... well maybe not you but most people!
You can go around calling another guy whatever you want! fact remains you my friend have proven nothing! you have quoted obscure atheist's unwilling to tell themselves the truth! Or sites who make assumptions when the majority of Science feels vastly different about the subject than their dribblings :o)
"And yes, it is always possible that "god" exists in the spaces we don't know about." So don't go around making the ignorant statement that there is no God! you by your own admittance cannot possibly know! So chances are that YOU ARE WRONG! :oP
"entropy is entirely a function of universal expansion, and not the cause of it."
are you awake when you write this? Now entropy is a concept of the universe but only when it's expanding? I'm sorry but entropy does not cause the expansion and the expansion does not cause entropy! Entropy will also take place in a stagnant universe :o) And no Entropy is not the cause of the universe :o) Are you slow?
God is the cause of the universe :o) And we know he is their because someone had to add order to the energy and matter inside3 the system initially :o) how does the order form to begin with :o) Thus The LAW of entropy suggests that an external force was needed to cause order inside th3 closed system of the universe :o)
"the trend toward disorder only applies to statistical mechanics" think we have clearly shown that you have NO clue what your talking about :o)
"does not affect the universe as a whole, because the average temperature over space of the universe declines directly in proportion to it's growth."
Firstly it does not affect the universe? then it affects the universe again? then it doesn't affect the universe because the expansion is proportional to it's temperature? BWAHAHAHA that is some funny stuff! So what your telling me is that Heat is generated in the expansion of the universe and that negates entropy? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA and i am the "idiot" LOL i will gladly remain an idiot if that means i do not start thinking like you do LOL
"collapsing into a singularity moments before the next big bang." this is the funniest crap EVER!
So the universe has been cycling for ETERNITY! and
ENTROPY never decreases because it keeps expanding and contracting? BWAHAHAHAHAH your sooooooo funny!
Really Again i suggest you listen to William Lane Craig
He will explain it without mocking you :o)
You cannot formulate eternity into time! you can want to but you simply cannot! eternity cannot be a measure of time!
After an eternity the universe will contract! means the time will never come because the an eternity is infinite! then there will be a big bang and an eternity of time before the next contraction! thus non of this can ever happen as there is already two moments of infinity in front of that thus doubly impossible to ever reach that point.
If you cannot understand that there cannot be an eternity in time before now! then maybe i'm not the stupid one here? :o)
"i.e., the older the universe gets, the faster it grows." I'd like to know if it grows as it gets older why does it ever contract? i thought it keeps growing? BWAHAHA
Secondly: How do you know this? how many universes have you studied? BWAHAHAHAHA Thirdly: Do you make the same stupid assumption that the universe is still expanding? mind you i'd rather not make an opinion as the starlight you idiots are viewing to say that the universe is currently expanding is thousands and often millions of light years away! HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE Is CURRENTLY DOING? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH you really are funny! :o)
Lastly: If the whole universe is expanding why is Andromeda and other galaxies coming closer? doesn't your hubble constant where you get all this crap from say that ALL galaxies should be moving away from each other?
So lets see your using a premise in mathematical equations that cannot be a constant. mmmmmmmmmmm Yeah i really wanna hear what your math says seeing as your assumptions are TERRIBLE!
"If there were an extra-universal force keeping entropy in check, then entropy in any form would not exist, or would constantly be cycled outwardly by the opposing force." I guess this could be true if you quantified the external force to an unintellectual entity with it's only functioning to negate entropy! this is not however the case. but you're welcome to live inside your delusion. i'm not even gonna try and correct you! i'll just mock sarcastically from the side line :o)
"We know that neither is true." BWAHAHAH how do you know this? when you have just stated that God can be where you cannot see! Don't be an idiot! *G*
"Second, you dismiss all science you don't like" TYPICAL ATHEISTIC LOGIC! because i do not believe your crap then i do not believe science! typical atheistic argument! later on you'll tell me that i am against science because i do not believe your crap? LOL
what evidence would you like? that Entropy is a fact?
now mister "astrophysics " seeing as you love the contracting and expanding universes so much! then you obviously believe in dark matter and dark energy :o)
Please feel free to prove dark matter, dark energy, the hubble constant, and the cyclic universe possibility :o)
your making yourself out as an idiot! but i would love to see you answer the last of my questions at least! you know! just for a final good laugh at your expense :o)

Ugh... You called me (and hundreds of thousands of other people) an idiot several times before you proved yourself one. You cut my sentences in half and even then you could not respond to the point they were making. You quote wiki to prove the exact point that I made. I was dumbing it down as much as I could for you. My understanding of the concepts goes deeper than that. And of course almost EVERY resource about cosmological entropy (heat loss via expansion, not disorder) will be made by an atheist, because most educated people, you know, the people who actually know these things, ARE ATHEIST. You always bring up these "many scientists" who have "proved" your god, yet you never name them or say what proof they have. And I agree that one cannot quantify eternity into time. That should go without saying. But, no, there is no proof for the need of an outside source of energy for the universe. Again, your inability to understand basic concepts is not proof of anything other than your inability to understand basic concepts. Find me ONE person with a background in anything outside of chemical engineering that can prove your god. Just one.

bwahaha that is brilliant reasoning! Typical atheist reasoning they must be clever and all other people must be stupid! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most physicist believe that time space and matter had a beginning! you will in fact have to go very far to find one who does not! the cyclic universe was proposed in the early stages of the big bang theory but was discredited for numerous reasons! most of which was the effect of Entropy on such as system and the fact that time cannot be precedingly infinite! you in your immense knowledge and understanding however are welcome to publish a paper to prove all those thousands of scientists who do believe time space and matter had a beginning! wrong and then also please post a paper to prove that in your own words! "heat loss via expansion, not disorder" So heat is loss due to expansion? and that in your mind is entropy? so you are an idiot i was right after all! secondly you suggest that i think 'heat loss via disorder?' NO BUB FOCUS! Heat loss due to ENTROPY! Heat Loss is lost due to randomness! thus a increase in disorder of the heat! :o) VASTLY different! but thank you for pointing out that you DO NOT understand entropy, And you clearly DO NOT understand the topic! Yet with your proven ignorance and idiocy you still claim there is no God? How could your feeble mind possibly know that?

My thinking you are an idiot has nothing to do with my atheism or your theism. I think you are an idiot because of your 10-year-old grasp of grammar, your 7-year-old grasp of physics, and your two-year-old grasp of logic. Anyway, could you please name ONE of those scientists you claim? Just one? Thanks. And furthermore, I see what your problem is. You see "entropy" as a force that causes things. It is not. It is (in all but statistical engineering terms) a MEASUREMENT of things that are already occurring. Entropy is not some magical force that causes heat loss, it is a numerical representation of the heat loss caused by universal expansion. Also, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE LAW OF ENTROPY". You might be talking about the corollary to the second law of thermodynamics in regards to entropy as it applies to thermodynamics. I am an atheist not because your god could not possibly exist, but because it is no more probable that it exists than any of the hundreds of thousands of gods mankind has cooked up over the years. All are unnecessary to the functioning of the universe.

Why does atheists always jump on the grammar band wagon! My mother tongue is Afrikaans so your attempt at an insult or a reference to my intellect because of my English is weak at best. I do expect that comment however, I always get it sooner or later. normally when people see their logic fails! then they attack my language skills :o) I am totally willing to speak Afrikaans if you wish? If you know any other languages i can give it a go too! I know a bit here and there :o)
funny how you mention my grasp on physics :o) First of all i havn't discussed physics with you yet :o) If you want to that's fine but a bit off subject! How you determine my grasp on it is truly amazing :o) also concidering that you have made no mention yourself to physics in order to establish your own grasp of the subject! So your judgement means very little but is a very amusing attempt to find an insult when your reasoning fails! :o)
oooh and then you mention my logic? really? lol this from the guy who says
"You can only make that assumption IF you pre-assume{{is this even a word?}}, without evidence, that the universe is not eternal in the first place." {So you think the universe is eternal? or could be eternal?}
"Again, eternity as a measure of time is just for our benefit, so we can wrap our brains around a linear existence" {How does eternity benefit us if we cannot grasp what eternity is? It;s not a part of our reference!}
"And I agree that one cannot quantify eternity into time. That should go without saying." {So then time does have a beginning?}
"Anyway, could you please name ONE of those scientists you claim?" {I assume this in reference to when i said "Most physicist believe that time space and matter had a beginning!" so now time does not have a beginning?}
At this time i point you back to my initial story :o) "that i have come to find is the apparent convenience of 'non belief', you can then jump from belief to belief in order to suite your argument." I thank you for clearly proving this point in my story :o) It was the only unverified fact :oP
Let's carry on with that logic of yours :o)
"It occurs because the universe is expanding and the heat/energy is used to fill the new space" {Ok i would love to see this mentioned anywhere by anyone who has any credentials! I mean seriously! you suggesting that Entropy would stop when the expansion stops? Really? that in your mind is entropy?}
"heat loss via expansion, not disorder" {again clearly heat loss via expansion! seriously? I think you got heat expansion of matter mixed up somewhere with entropy! Tell me what temperature is the vacuum of space? :o) }
I would suggest you do not mention logic in our discussion any longer for you clearly have lost the meaning somewhere along the way :o) don't worry i have come to find it to be an atheistic condition :o) it'll stop when you realize there has to be a God :o)
you only want one scientist? Stephen Hawking? don't know if you've heard of him! Can't see why you atheists don't cling to the man! He explains clearly how the universe does not need a God! He believes that the universe in deed did have a beginning, and this was the beginning of time, space and matter. He does suggest that there is no reason to look past the point of the beginning of time for that does not pertain to science! that is just normal atheistic denial but stephen calls this 'logic' He does also try to convince you and himself that the laws of the universe break down as the universe reaches quantum size within the singularity. this however does not destroy the laws of time space and matter (the point referred to is not even logical considering the faulty hubble constant as well as the faulty constant speed of light!)
"You see "entropy" as a force that causes things"
"In physics, an entropic force acting in a system is a phenomenological force resulting from the entire system's statistical tendency to increase its entropy, rather than from a particular underlying microscopic force" (
"We have define energy as the driving force for changes, entropy is also a driving force for physical and chemical changes (reactions)" (
I see Entropy as a force alright! :o) not so much one that causes things no! I think when Entropy reaches maximum and "equilibrium" is reached that Entropy will stop until more energy is then added :o) thus : The change in S(Entropy of system) is always greater or equal to ZERO :o) so no i would not say it causes much of anything other than the movement of heat from hotter areas towards colder areas in order to reach "equilibrium"(heat death).
"THE LAW OF ENTROPY" Ermm yeah pretty much! :o) Seeing as it's derived from the second LAW of Thermodynamics which states "the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant"
So yeah Entropy can very well be called a Law for ALL systems obey it :o)
Now i'm expecting the typical retort "Not all systems! Only closed systems! Idiot!" Lol did i get it right? :oP That is after all the favorite argument for why entropy cannot be used to disprove evolution! I hear the age old retort "the earth is not a closed system you idiot!" well that might or might not be! the state of a system being closed or open pertains to whether it has a mechanism to utilize the energy available! Thus in order for life on earth to gain energy from the sun it need a mechanism "change" the heat and light energy into energy that a human for instance can use. Thus the plant uses the suns energy, the cow eats the plant and the human eats the cow. Now the human gained the energy needed indirectly from the sun :o) Bur if that same person goes and sits in the sun without food and water they will die! because their system is closed to the energy of the sun! All you will get is cooked :o) that is why Creationists argue entropy suggest life cannot spontaneously start on earth! This is due to the fact that neither Rocks, minerals, amino acids, or water have the mechanism to use the energy of the sun to "magically" create life! If this was possible however then Dna would undergo it's own form of Entropy! not gaining information due to time! but loosing the information it has as it's gets scrambled up due to randomness (this can be seen in genetics today! living things genes do not get better over time! they're degrading and the genetic code is becoming smaller and smaller) Ok I know we just went WAY over you pay grade so let's not go there ! Let's stick to whether God exists or not :o)
your final bit of "logic" is the best :o) "I am an atheist not because your god could not possibly exist, but because it is no more probable that it exists than any of the hundreds of thousands of gods mankind has cooked up over the years."
Excuse me how is that logic? "the more gods that humanity cooks up the less an less chance there is of God existing? your concept of statistics is just as bad as the rest of your "logic" First off {the more gods humanity cooks up the less chance there is of any specific god being the real God} With that i do agree! but this has nothing to do with the question "IS THERE A GOD?
If i show you any object "man made" even if you do not know what the object is! you will always say it's man made! I won't be able to convince you that it's not man made! I can't even sell the idea that a piece of paper formed by itself! Yet you look at all the things in the universe! all the things on earth! all the amazing complexity we find in science! All the information stored in nature from dna to quantum particles! You can truly say chances is it all came about by chance and time? If i try and sell that fantasy with anything stupidly man made you will not believe me! but when immense complexity is involved then it's an accident?
And you profess that this type of thinking is open minded, logical, and intellectual?

Dear brain-damaged fellow; of course time (as far as we are able to understand it's passing) had a beginning. Time cannot pass outside the universe, so it is irrelevant to the existence of the system as a whole. Time passes (in our point of view) because of motion within the universe, which only occurs because there is more energy in any amount of space than the minimum that has to be there to prevent heat death. Maybe if I could find someone to translate, you would understand the point of a single one of my sentences. You are a liar and a troll. If your god existed, it would not count you among the good.

so time had a beginning. time relates to space wich relates to matter thus all of these had a beginning. What caused this beginning of time space and matter? or did it just happen out of nowhere for no reason?

Until there is positive, non-reductive proof to the contrary, yes, that has to be the working assumption. The beginnings of the current form of what we perceive to be the universe and time was necessarily precipitated by the collapse of the last one. Time is relative to motion and motion is relative to expansion. Simple as that. Until you can give me a reason that a hypothetical perfect being would need to create an imperfect world for ????, then science tells us that we must assume the negative until positive proof is shown. All you have shown is the most basic in reductive logic. Just because you cannot fathom any other possibility, it does not follow that your god-thing has to exist.

you can't put the start of this one on the collapse of the previous into infinity! they are then just CYCLES just as time is! and that cannot be infinite! sooner or later something had to begin the process! Regardless postulating theories on external universe you have even less proof of than me for God is again the definition of the word ignorance! I just don't want you an intelligent person to remain so fixed on ignorance! We don't even understand this universe and you place it's fate on thought's of a previous one? come on! you can't think that is logical thinking? and even if it was it all had to begin somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that we have to believe the negative until the positive can be proven. again your reasoning about who made the wheel! You have no proof that humans made the wheel so you cannot claim it! that is foolish! logical deduction makes us know that man made the wheel. We do not need the initial account of the creation. Even if this thinking was true! Then it has to be applied in All directions! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no proof this universe had a previous universe!
there is no proof that this universe started in a big bang!
there is no proof that evolution is a fact!
there is no proof that God does not exist!
(then you'll be an agnostic not an atheist!)
If you cannot see truth because of deductive logic, based on the facts we do know. then how can you postulate no God out of a cyclic universe! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No machine or system anywhere is eternal! thinking that the cyclic universe is has no basis in truth ANYWHERE! and for that to be possible you will need fuel to feed the machine of the cyclic universe! and that FUEL will have to come from outside the universe! the system cannot sustain itself! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the probability by looking at the facts suggest there is a FORCE outside of our perception of Time, Space, and Matter! that is an almost scientific certainty! does this prove this force is God 100% I'll admit No it does not! But this force will have to be eternal, omnipresent, and supernatural! so you might not be able to call it God! but it has all the qualities of what you would call a God! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll ask you again to listen to any speech by William Lane Craig even debates against avid atheists such as dawkins and hitchens, even you will have to admit to the logic! Of course like so many atheist you can refuse the logic! but then you cannot keep on professing that you walk around with a open mind!

I am an atheist and not an agnostic because I have logically deducted that, even should a god-thing exist, it's influence on our lives must be so necessarily unseen and unfelt that it functionally does not exist at all. None is necessary, no matter how many times you assert, sans evidence, that it is. And no, you do not need fuel for a cyclic universe. There is nothing outside the universe for energy to escape to, so the amount of energy in the universe is always constant. The only variance lies between space and elapsed time within the universe. All matter is energy, just in a dormant state. When there is an abundance of energy in the universe, i.e. at the early stages, is coallesces into matter. When the ratio of energy to space becomes too low, matter will eventually all break down to energy to fuel expansion. When the ratio falls below the expansion limit, the universe spontaneously collapses, collecting all of the energy into a single point before exploding outward and doing the same thing again. Since energy/heat can only exist within the universe, there is no "heat loss" to the universal system; there is nowhere outside for it to go. It just thins out to fill the void caused by expansion. THAT is universal entropy. That's all. And no matter how many unrelated wiki pages you bring up, nothing will change that. And no, I don't see the logic. William Craig is an alcoholic dumbass. He is a proven liar and a convicted criminal who pretends to have the credentials to make arguments of this magnitude. He does not. He is a huckster who makes a living by bilking the willfully ignorant out of their hard-earned money. In closing, I say this; Logic? I do not think this word means what you think it means.

the cause of the universe functionally does not exist? so the universe came from nothing? your circular reasoning is truly fascinating! then you assert the energy in the universe will always remain constant? you have no basis for that assumption whatsoever. are you familiar with occam's razor? logically one accept the theory with the least assumptions. you compile assumption to ignore the problem. that however is fine. the fact will remain in the end that you cannot have a infinite amount of cycles before now! It is for all intensive purposes impossible! If there was an infinite of universe before now then why are we here at all? the infinite cycle would not have reached it's "end" our present. your welcome to keep believing that fantasy! I have to say brilliant bit about William Lane Craig! I guess if you can't beat the man with logical reasoning the atheist ALWAYS resort to hurling unfounded insults. I always love when atheist prove what i say about them and you continuously do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.[2] In 2011, a five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies and spanning 7 billion years of cosmic time confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds" ( ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few problems if you will! "dark energy" for one! never been observed tested or quantified. but you believe in that? and then you must believe in "dark matter" too. so you believe the universe to exist of 93-96% of something that we assume is there to fit the assumptive theory of the big bang! BRILLIANT! that apparently is logic?
Secondly you'll notice the devastating problem that in this universe it is "confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds" thus you my friend will have to create a brand new force to postulate how this universe can then possibly contract! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note i have ignored your idiotic reasoning on Entropy! Most physicist have accurately postulated that a preceding cycle will always be smaller and of shorter duration than a previous cycle. thus will regress to a finite beginning! your welcome to be one of the few people ALIVE that continue this type of thinking, I am WAY past caring what you believe! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you will ALWAYS keep switching beliefs as it suits you to first there is an eternity then you admit eternity of time is not possible then you jump back onto your cyclic universe when you have to confront the cause just to face all the same problems with your idea of a possible infinite cycle! then you switch from saying there is no God to saying you never claimed there is no God, back no to claiming there is no God? I think you should sit down and try to stick to a universal model that best explains God away for you. then come back to me and i'll refute that one for you too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must say if Entropy was accepted the way you describe it would be a really nifty atheistic theory... until you run into infinity that is. It is one of the "better" ideas i've heard on entropy but it's a very singular idea as most if not all physicist disagree with this type of "universal entropy" in fact i'm having trouble getting the idea from ANYONE but you! a science paper would be most valuable and you really don't have to worry that it would be above my grasp :o) I guarantee you my intellect is not as diminished as you would wish to believe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think we should argue who'd logical or not. I think that should be a debate for people from the outside, as i truly do not see 99% of your "logic" and you claim i just have none! I have to contest that still as that would mean that a large percentage of the population is "illogical" and only a minority is "intelligent" enough to think logically! and they are the ones who logically dismiss God without having even close to the amount of knowledge needed to make such a statement!

It just hit me! your a gambling addict passing judgement on another guy because you claim he is an alcoholic? sorry don't you have a story of how you basically ruined yourself financially! I can just imagine the impact on your family! And you now sit here judging a guy with no basis for doing so! and secondly do you not prove your logic! and reasoning! by gambling away money that you do not even have! mmmmm seems by that alone i win the logic reasoning argument so i think you should stop using that one.... oh and the eternity thing is getting old! I really do not wish to explain it AGAIN! :oP

You are a piece of human garbage and deserve no further of my time. What kind of POS digs up a cry for help and uses that to assail someone's character? You should be glad that your god-thing does not exist. If it did, it would surely send you to that fictional lake of fire, because you are the exact type of crappy human being that it's followers pretend to hate but so often are. You may go away forever now. Good luck.

i don't assail your character you make your character quite clear in almost every post i've read by you! But you need not fear my judgement of you for i have no idea what God will see in your heart :o) I don't need luck :o) I have Jesus! even when i'm wrong He makes me Right :o) i guess then it's good bye from you? it's a shame you almost made a point...but not quite

15 More Responses

No one can absolutely prove that Magic Purple Sky Badgers don't exist somewhere in this vast universe of ours.But just because we cannot absolutely disprove their existence does not mean that we should go around saying either a) that they really do exist or b) that there is a good chance they exist or even c) that there is any kind of realistic possibility that they do exist.They are imaginary beings that no one can see or interact with in any observable or measurable way. In that sense they are just like "god".

except that God can be proven in observational science! We can see the remnants in light just as He said! We can even see the red shift in galaxies as God stretched out the heavens just the way He said. You can then look at the Bible and see al the scientific knowledge it contains that it should not have! Job describes the hydrological cycle exactly! Job also mentions that the possibility to use electricity to communicate is possible! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job 38:35Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible then goes on to accurately depict history! and then accurately predicts the future! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But lets assume that there was no evidence at all that was biblical: first off a magic purple sky badger does not serve a function other than to entertain atheists in their folly! The fact that the God e3ntitiy serves the one fundamental reason of our being here! God is the creator of the creation! You need to ignore the fact that the creation needs a Creator! This has absolutely nothing to do with your purple sky badgers! All you once again did was prove the point of my story! You are the only one believing in your fictional colored animals. I however cannot claim that they emphatically do not exist! In all honesty i will need to be everywhere at the same time in order to state that as fact! Yet the ignorant atheist can still exclaim there is no God even when they admittedly cannot know enough to make that assumption! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proof for God however remains quite visible as i have stipulated in my story. you are however welcome to bring science to show me how what i say is wrong! The atheist asks proof of God! It's everywhere! they deny all the proves are you going to deny mine too? and why? because it puts the reality of a Creator back into the mix and that is unthinkable to you is it not? why? because then your accountable to the one who Created you! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to carry on your purple sky badger debate you must at least show how a pink purple sky badger can be quantified to have the same type of purpose in this universe which would make God and your badger comparable! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I put it again to you that your invention of fictitious animals of any color only points to the mentality of your argument! If atheists want to be taken seriously then they should start debating seriously! I believe a Cause, caused all of the universe! you have to believe that the universe came from nothing with no reason? that is the only true fantasy! nothing cannot make anything let alone something as amazing as the universe and as miraculous as life

Your fanaticism is so extreme that your arguments are desparate and ludicrous. Just look at the logic of what you are saying - or rather the complete lack of it.

Job predicted telephones communications based on Job 38:35? That is such a massive leap that it is truly pathetic.

The Bible predicted the future? No mate, sorry, there is no evidence to support that view any more than there is evidence to support the view that any number of C19th snake oil merchants were able to foretell the future - or that Nostradamus could.

Indeed Nostradamus is a good and accurate analogy -

1) take a whole bunch of vague mystical predictions

2) take the entire course of history and every single event and happening

3) match the two up and what do you know? A few events vaguely match?

That is not predicting the future. That is matching vague woolly predictions with events that bear a general reseemblence to the prediction.

And secondly your bible does not predict anything in particular. Messiahs? Lots of predictions for those in the OT for sure. Also lots of people popping up around the time of the 1st century BC and AD claiming to be messiahs - lots! In fact even Hellenistic kings kind of made that claim, titling themselves as Saviour etc. It was the fashion of the day.

Also you need to consider when various biblical books were written - some were written later than the events they depict, hardly reliably dated sources.

The first five books were supposedly written by Moses. But we know for a fact that they definitely were not. Moses lived around 1200 or 1300 BC. The Israelites had not even developed writing until around 900 BC at the earliest (and that is being very generous). So those books were written long after the actual Moses died.

Joshua, we know from the archeology, is virtually a complete work of fiction from beginning to end. There may have been an Israelite leader of that name and he may have presided over a period of expanison at the expense of the Canaanites BUT the details of his campaign and the specific stories attributed to him are all later embleshments, exaggerations and fictions. Some of the battles he is reported to have fought were for towns that had not even been built at the time he was supposed to have lived.

The bible as a source of history can be a very dubious source indeed. Without independent verification from non-Christian / Jewish sources or from archeology it remains a document about which we need to be sceptical.

And what is this about God's existence is proven by the existence of light? Sheer madness. Is it not more likely that ancient peoples regarded light as a mysterious and wonderful natural power and were therefore likely to evolve myths and folk stories that relate light to their god(s)? Of course it is.

The association between your god and light is derived from the simple fact that the ancient Israelites, like many ancient peoples, revered light as a wonderous natural force. And quite likely because Israelite monotheism may well originate from Egyptian monotheism in the form of Aten worship (the sun god). Some of the psalms that reference light are actually variations on older Egyptian prayers to the sun god.

Is not the presence of light in the universe evidence of Aten, as much as it is of your god? Is not lightening evidence of Thor or of Zeus? Are not the presence of rabbits on the heath evidence of the great rabbit god Frith?

And how about the silly logic that says that because Purple Sky Badgers have no purpose they cannot exist? Are you suggesting things can only exist if they have a purpose? How then do you explain Mr Clippy? Also how do you know Sky Badgers don't have a purpose. Let's make one up for them shall we. Let's say their purpose is to fly about in the sky and inspire great art. There. Now they have a purpose so they must be real.

You say creation must have a creator - but who created the creator?... (maybe Magic Purple Sky Badgers).

All your arguments appear to me to boil down to "the universe is amazing and big and incredible and there are large aspects of it we don't understand and cannot adequately explain...therefore god must exist because it is the only explanation I can understand". Sorry. That just does not follow at all. That is like a kid finding a present at the foot of his bed on Christmas morning and taking it as absolute proof for the existence of Father Christmas, because he can't think of any other adequate explanation.

"Your fanaticism is so extreme"
This from a person who exclaims without any logical reason as to believe it, that there cannot be a God.
"Definition of fanatic:noun 'a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause:'" ( one fanatic accusing another fanatic of fanaticism!? Bwahahaha that's some funny stuff there i see why your called "LaughingCavalier"
"Job predicted telephones communications based on Job 38:35? That is such a massive leap that it is truly pathetic."
Again you are quite mistake in your atheistic assumption. I call it atheistic assumption because this phenomena is most prevalent in atheists where they continually and on purpose misrepresent the others persons point of view. This too is such an attempt all be it an extremely bad one.
Let's clarify: Job made no predictions :o) God was explaining to Job how little Job knew, then how could he be saying the things he was saying about God! :o) So God himself said to Job! Do you have the capacity to use electricity to communicate over a large distance :o) I made no mention of telephones specifically! But the ability to use electricity to communicate! How could anyone "speculate" that this could be possible :o) note:once would be coincidence yet the Bible has more such accurate references than statistical mathematics could account for! The probability is just too great to be considered coincidence:
"The Bible predicted the future?"
Well the Bible knew that the current cosmological and world view would exist in this current time: 2 Peter 3 ”3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men.
There was however no reason to think that this world view would become prevalent, especially at a time in history where man has the ability to destroy themselves! As Jesus mentions in His predictions of the last days. Note before the advent of the atom bomb man did not have the ability to destroy themselves!
Mathew 24 :”21“For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22“Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. ”
As for other biblical prophecies i'll just give you these "" and ""
there are many sites that will point out the predictions that have been fulfilled not in c=biblical times but in modern history! You are welcome to go and study the facts! as it is clear by your lengthy post on this topic that you have not done a biased study on the matter. I then suggest this matter of false or coincidental prophecies to rest. get your facts straight! I for one don't say thing without the back up of what i say! so maybe next time, before you wish to lodge your ignorant opinion, go look at the subject at the very least.
then you jump to arguing about Moses? and whether writing had been developed by then. "The Israelites had not even developed writing until around 900 BC at the earliest (and that is being very generous)." I point you to my story "the wheel argument" the lack of proof is not proof in itself. beyond that how long would you think writing would take to "evolve" or does it just magically appear on the scene wherever you wish to place it. i refer to 900BC? and i guess i'd also have to add "being very generous" before i get accused of msiquoting you!
"The earliest examples of written Hebrew date from the 10th century BC" ( as "unbiased" a view as wiki is of course!
you are then welcome to google "evolution of writing" and try and figure out where you would put the original written hebrew and then assume again whether Moses could have written or not!
But the logical assumption would be that a man that was trained in Egypt as an egyptian would have at the very least have known hieroglyphs! Your logical is purely an atheistic attempt to discredit the Bible. And an extremely weak one at that!
you then mention Joshua and the Canaanites and the story being virtually a complete work of fiction! your welcome to list any sources and i will gladly refute them with the facts! But i will ho where not sit her proving the whole story of Joshua, i can however suspect it's more of the wheel argumentation? I will say it again the absence of proof is not proof!
Judges 2:
"1The angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, 2and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be [thorns] in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.”
Another prediction the Bible makes pointing to the nevr ending conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews. Seriously i can go on and on about fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, and they remain in sequence always! Your welcome to go find any contradictions to this. But do yourself a favor! Stay of the Atheistic sites they ten to be biased for some “unknown” reason
As for your Purple Sky Badger's Purpose, you again completely miss the point either due to lack of wanting to know or lack of being able to know. you choose! There would be no function for your sky badger in logical thinking! There is a significant function for God the creator of the Universe! The point remains! your idiotic and childish "creations" of fantasy will always remain a stupid example to compare God to! But only in the mind of an atheist is such reasoning considered logic!
"You say creation must have a creator - but who created the creator?" Seriously your trying to prove yourself stupid? the need for things in this universe to have a cause is a fundamental law of the science this universe holds to! every action has a reaction! so the reaction of the universe had to have an action namely God! this law obviously does not apply outside of the universe where the law is confined to! Again! your trying to be a computer and bind the programmer to your computer code! stop being idiotic please i beg of you!
and no the fact that the universe is so complex that it absolutely has to have a creator is not the point! just one part of the numerous logical conclusions one can make looking at the universe!
Making the stupid claim there is No God has absolutely no logical reasoning behind it, has absolutely no scientific basis for the belief, and there just simply is no evidence even to suggest it could lead to proof that there is no God. Thus you will always be a close minded fool if you profess to be an atheist! I at least have a logical reason why i Believe in God! you? you have an emotional decision you make on pure blind assumption, enjoy but that will always be ignorant and foolish

Clearly you are a fanatic, as everyone can see from your obessively long and somewhat desperate posts. Also most of what you say is not an argument, it is just stating and re-stating the same opinion.

A few brief posts:

1) The Job text simply presents god as saying that by sending a lightening bolt he announces his presence. Zeus was also supposed to hold this power. Does that therefore mean that Zeus exists too?

2) You arguments about "god MUST exist because I say so" don't amount to anything worth even replying to. Show me your evidence for god's existence. So far nothing of any more significance than for Magical flying badgers. O dear. Desparately using phrases like "must" and "absolutely" and mock laughter is not evidence.

3) The hebrews had no writen language when Moses lived. Fact. They evolved writing 300 years later & then were only using it for calendars, trade & simple lists by and large. No examples of any Israelite religious writing in hieroglyphs exist. No evidence Moses ever wrote anything.

That is just a brief overview that took about 5 mins. Everything else you wrote is equally flawed.

lol yeah ermm thanx for your OPINION I'll at it to the rest of the dribble you added in your other reply! when you get FACTS then your welcome to come back to try and debate! You clearly do not know enough about theology especially christian theology! You also clearly understand nothing about the history of writing or of the basic principle a absence of evidence is not evidence! You and i can both assume whether people at the time of Moses could write or not! you assume they could not because no writing of that time is found in Hebrew? I assume they could write because writing should "evolve" following the first conscious thought. So an educated "ex egyptian" he would surely have been educated enough to be able to write. The evidence on my side is the accurate historical record of the Bible that suggest Moses surely could write. You can try to prove the Bible False by pointing to a definate verifiable contradiction! Until that time the text remains valid whether you believe it or not. your welcome to claim anything i say is flawed but until you prove the hypothesis wrong the premises set by the theory remains valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
everything that begins to exist has a cause! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe began! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so it had a cause! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause of this universe caused time, space, an matter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the cause of this universe is outside of time, out side of space out side of matter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
being out side of all the things physics pertains to this cause must be the creator of the fundamental laws of physics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these laws are immensely complex and therefore needs a conscious mind with intelligence to "formulate" their function for existence --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the further and further you delve into the nature of this "cause" the more and more it represents the idea of what God is! especially the Christian God --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are welcome to DISPROVE any of the premises made :o) till then i'm quite valid to believe what i believe! more valid to believe that than to believe there is no God! that's what you atheists dislike so much! there will always be less evidence for your belief. If you dislike the situation then switch your ignorant view point! :o)

Something or things caused this particular universe to come into existence in the form in which it is now.

There are a number of different theories as to how that may have happened.

The truth is we do not know the precise details of what exactly happened because of the sheer distance of time and space between then and now - we cannot be present to observe precisely what happened. We have some information from which scientists can postulate theories about what happened.

Of course there are no observations we can make easily (perhaps a way will be found in future) about what may have happened prior to the big bang event.

What you have effectively done is to say:

a) the universe as we know it appears to have come into being in a single moment some billions of years ago

b) nothing appears to have come before that event (although we cannot be absolutely certain of this)

c) that event must have been caused by something....

d) therefore it must have been caused by an all powerful entity called "god" that, for some reason, decided to show a particular interest in a small group of ancient semitic peoples in the near middle east between around 1200 BC and about 100 AD, after which he lost interest and presumably went off to some other world to burn a few bushes and encourage another group of primitive peoples to kill a few dumb animals and offer them to him in blood sacrifice. This entity cannot be seen or observed in any material or tangible way.

Point d) is, of course a gigantic leap of the imagination for which there is absolutely no logical justification whatsoever.

Indeed it is every bit as reasonable for me to postulate that Flying Magic Purple Sky Badgers came from another dimension, laid a great golden egg, and the extraordinary magic powers of their egg initiated a great process by which the universe was hatched. A claim for which there would equally be a total absense of any evidence. Indeed, if I had been a charismatic enough man living a few thousand years ago I might even have been able to found a religion on that basis. Link it up with some reasonable ethical codes, some juicy folk stories & ingratiate my religion with the powers that be and who knows, a few thousand years later I have founded a major religion with every bit as much credibility in absolute logical terms as modern Christianity.

I have had a look at the so-called "prophecies" which you claim demonstrate the credibility of the Bible. I note they appear on the usual kind of suspects as far as fundamentalist Christian literalist propaganda sites are concerned. They pretty much show what I expected - a combination of very general prophecies that could apply in any number of situations, some shoehorning of predictions into events that don't actually match them that well, other predictions that could easily be applied to a very large number of cultures and civilisations and stand a very good chance of coming true.

Let's have a look at one or two examples shall we.

1) Israel will prevail over its enemies

Last time I looked Israel's confrontational approach to dealing with its neighbours had not yet led to what might be described as a peaceful and stable situation. May attempting to triumph over its enemies is part of the problem. A little less emphasis on triumphing and a little more emphasis on getting along with its neighbours might well be a better approach.

2) The ruins of Israel will be re-built

It was when I got as far as this one that I noticed that the claimed predictions as related on the site seemed to diverge in meaning somewhat from the actual bible passages on which they claimed to be based.

This one for instance is based on a passage in Amos that talks very specifically about the tabernacle of David, not the nation of Israel (in the KJV translation which is usually the most accurate literal translation). The Tabernacle was the portable tent that contained the Israelite holy of holies and which has not existed since biblical times.

I went through 6 of these prophecies and found similar grave flaws in every single case. Nothing particularly impressive there.

On the accuracy of the book of Joshua and other old testament texts I would suggest you read up on the subject of ancient near eastern archeology. Perhaps try reading a book or two, rather than rely on links on the internet. A shocking suggestion I know but you might find you learn something.

I would suggest something by Professor Israel Finkelstein or William G Dever who in Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Archeology at Lycoming College. To sumarise Dever's position:

"Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence."

Essentially the bible cannot be taken as a reliable historic record. Some of the stories it relates (about wars with Assyrians for instance) are verifiable. Others are seemingly inaccurate or even fabricated propaganda that bears no relation to the facts.

The biblical creation story falls within a series of early accounts that we know contain inaccuracies, embelishments and propaganda based fabrications. As a literal and absolute account it is fundamentally flawed. And this is the very testimony you are expecting people to accept as the basis for explaining the inception of the universe? You only need to look at the actual Genesis story - it claims creation took 7 days - clearly it took billions of years, so you have a clearly inaccurate literal account right from the start.

firstly the main question was Is there a God! the question about who this God is, is irrelevant to the first question of "Is there a God" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First premise: The universe began: you can take any theory about sponge universes, bubble universes, however far back you wish to push the beginning which is ridiculous because you have even less evidence for another universe than you would have for God's existence. You will be hard-pressed to find a physicist or cosmologist who do not agree to a definite beginning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All things that exist have a cause! now you might say No! ALL things that exist has a material cause, and God is not material. the problem is their is a difference between the creator and the mechanism of creation! I am a sculptor and can sculpt something out of marble! The marble was the material that was transformed but that is independent of the mind that made it!. So the mechanism by which God would make the universe is clearly independent of Him! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot prove that there is anything that comes into being out of nothing! thus the premises must be accepted that everything that begins to exist has a cause! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So unless you can disprove any of the leading premises then the conclusions logically follow! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there was a cause to the universe(whenever you want to put it - It happend! claiming where in a multiverse of some type just pushes the beginning further back in time it does not explain the bginning away!) So the cause the univers was the cause of time, space, and matter! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So because the cause is not a part of the thing it creates, you then come to logically conclude that the cause is timeless, space less, and not made up of matter! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can then look at the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. It's either due to necessity, random chance, or intelligence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not necessity for a leading event would not know the cause of following events. it cannot be random chance because this will have to lead into a multiverse scenario which is still finely tuned for the multiverse and still originate in another beginning! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then your left with intelligent design thus there is a God! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your post beckons me to go and read some book a suppose by one of either "Professor Israel Finkelstein or William G Dever" you then quote apparently from Mr Dever He says "The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence." firstly the word PROBABLE should indicate that Mr Dever does not know this he is assuming :o) He is welcome to assume! He aslo then makes no mention at least in your quote of these "contradicted" archeological evidence? you do however mention in your own words that Biblical events such as the wars with the Assyrians are proven true by archeology But you yourself give NO examples of events PROVEN FALSE? why is this? i'm sure you would excitedly point me to the crushing blow of my Bible? Yet you do not except to say "Others are seemingly inaccurate or even fabricated propaganda that bears no relation to the facts." seemingly then again means "you think so but cannot know" this is the typical Atheistic reasoning and i will say it AGAIN! you cannot assume the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you like your flying magic pet :o) that's cute all atheist seems to have these i think it's adorable! i quote you again "Flying Magic Purple Sky Badgers came from another dimension, laid a great golden egg, and the extraordinary magic powers of their egg initiated a great process by which the universe was hatched" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly: why does your badger need to fly if it's immaterial? .........................................................................................................................
Secondly: seeing as it's purple it's a defined color of nature and therefore should not be a part of the cause of the color purple as the color purple exists inside this universe ans is a construct of the particles of this universe! ........................................................................................................................
thirdly: a badger is also a construct of this universe and therefore should also similarly not exist outside of this universe .........................................................................................................................
fourth: This egg is Golden? also a construct of the created universe! .........................................................................................................................
now If your badger is the cause of this universe as you propose, you have clearly by your description of it shown that it is a material being which then also should have a cause, which would inevitably be a non material entity not confined by material description or confinement :o) thus he fulfills the eternal principle needed for a non cause being :o) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your badger is almost certainly not the cause of this universe and even if It was that still proves there has to be a God who made your badger :o)
lastly the Bible clearly says that the creation of the earth and life on it took 6 days. and you are welcome to bring your "proof" of how this is not true! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to discuss evolution i point you to my strory on "proof of God" and read the posts that have already been discussed. An open minded atheist actually asked some really interesting questions and after being answered, admitted even though he is not willing to believe that there is a God that the points of either evolution or creation must be considered valid! you yourself have mentioned the inability to know the distant past so you cannot ever know for certain --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you still have to disprove God! then you can disprove the Bible. then we can show you how evolution and creation are equally unprovable theories --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will point you to one crucial point in the creationist argument i have never heard an answer for! Carbon 14 should have reached equilibrium in our atmosphere within the first 30 000 years of the earths beginning. why then has carbon 14 not reached equilibrium yet? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rest of your "hearsay" "opinions" are exactly that and so what do you want me to say against your opinion except that your wrong! I have been studying biblical predictions for quite some time, and have heard all the apposing claims of contradiction and have found them all the same baseless "hearsay" "they say" "my opinion" kind of evidence. Fact remains over the years numerous events in the bible have been proven correct through archeological discoveries. even events that Atheists used as late as the 1800's against the bible such as the existence of the Hittites, in fact some closed minded atheists are still claiming this as fact! I say again! bring apposing proof! the fact that it has not been verified archeologically means exactly that! It could be verified tomorrow! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end you have a "Theist:Believes God exists" an "Athiest:Believes God does not exist" or a "Agnostic:Believes nothing can be known for or against the existence of God" the meanings are not interchangeable. I am a THEIST. so i present my evidence that makes me believe there is a God! If You are an ATHEIST and wish to disprove my claims, then you will firstly have to DISPROVE my claims! not assume they are wrong but PROVE they are wrong! Then to affirm your position that there is no God you will have to prove that there is in fact no God! I know i already hear the old argument you cannot prove a negative! You can prove that a married bachelor does not exist! similarly a agnostic theist does not exist either! I can also guarantee you that there is no muslim in the house of representatives. so a negative can be proven in the right premises. I do however fully agree with you that you cannot possibly prove that God does not exist! But i think the fact is more that you cannot because it's not true than you cannot because you do not have sufficient evidence! regardless! in light of the complete lack of evidence i am forced to ask you, can you then truly claim there is no God when there just is no evidence that God does not exist! should you then not consider a form of agnosticism, in which case... why are you viewing your opinion? you shouldn't have one! :o) By deduction you will notice that i do not believe an atheist can truly exist :o) because there is no possible convincing evidence to believe it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theist? Atheist? Agnostic?

You cannot disprove the existence of Flying Magic Purple Badgers therefore they must exist.

That is your own logic in a nutshell.

I note you are not even willing to read any significant work of ancient near eastern archeology or history. You are therefore not in a position to debate their credibility. The fact that you dismiss William Dever without even bothering to read any of his books demonstrates your fanaticism quite clearly.

You seem very keen to have a discussion concerning physics and entropy et al.

Might I ask what your academic qualifications are that enables you to even discuss these things seriously in the first place?

Do you have a masters or phd in the relevant subject? Or a degree level qualification?

The Hittites in the bible and the Hittites that fought with the Egyptians at Kadesh and established a large empire are almost certainly not the same tribal people.

Early C20th archeologists misnamed the people of Hatussa as Hittites because they mistakenly believed that these were the Hittites referenced in the bible. In reality the people of Hatussa called themselves the Hatti, not the Hittites. The name stuck only because the language of the Hatti was deciphered a very long time after their archeology was discovered & by that time the Hittite name had stuck.

The fact that they are mentioned in the bible is neither here nor there in any event.

"and wish to disprove my claims, then you will firstly have to DISPROVE my claims!"

I have already demonstrated that your claims are fundamentally flawed. The fact that you cannot accept it is your problem.

The fact is that the archeological evidence demonstrates fairly overwhelmingly that the book of Joshua is an entirely inaccurate account of the Israelites in Palestine. This is accepted by all mainstream archeologists that specialise in this field. And that includes William Dever, who you dismiss, even though he is the most pro-Christian expert in this field. (perhaps you ought to have bothered to read him before dismissing him out of hand).

Amongst the numerous errors riddled throughout the account in Joshua are:

1) Many of the towns and villages mentioned by name had been destroyed/abandoned a long time before Joshua lived, some by as much as a staggering 1000 years. Ai and Arad being good examples - both had been in ruins for 1000 years by the time Joshua was supposedly born.

2) Others mentioned had not even been built at the time of Joshua but were actually built a lot later (but before the book of Joshua was actually written - which was probably around 600-700 BCE, fully 600 years after Joshua died.

3) The city of Jericho was largely abandoned by the time of Joshua and had no walls standing at that time to come tumbling down. It was in a state of dereliction from a period some 300 years before Joshua was supposed to have live and remained so until some 300 years after his death when its fortunes recovered somewhat.

"I have already demonstrated that your claims are fundamentally flawed. The fact that you cannot accept it is your problem." are you following the same conversation? you have demonstrated no flaws anywhere. your reasoning up to now has been you don't think i'm right so then i'm wrong. than you for that bit of reasoning you'll excuse me if i just laugh at you? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. the city of Ai for instance was in fact found! the dating of the site does hoever not fall into the time line of joshua. which seems to be the case. upon ascertaining what method of dating was used it seems carbon dating was used... (make a note of this :o)
2)the wall was infact built PRE joshua! you SHOULD DO YOUR HOMEWORK! but also dated pre Joshua by dating pottery shards! again with carbon dating! {i guess if the demolish my house and find my 1913 penny they will happily conclude my house was destroyed in 1913. that logic is brilliant but again! keep in mind carbon dating} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) your statement is based on what evidence exactly? your statement carries as much weight as any atheist argument! Of what i can ascertain the "evidence" has archeologists believing that Jericho and it's walls did exist but was destroyed before Joshua arrived on the scene. again this was dated by carbon dating!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
check the site out above
Above ALL the problems with carbon dating the specific problem with dating something like pottery by using this dating method is as follows...
carbon 14 gets produced when the suns energy hits nitrogen to create the unstable element carbon 14. this carbon 14 gets inhaled and used by plants! not being able to distinguish between carbon 12 and carbon 14. the plant then gets consumed by an animal and the carbon14 is trapped in the bone, and can thus be dated.... just for interest sake fossils have no carbon so carbon dating cannot be used to date fossils let alone that carbon 14's half life is only around 5700 years which should make dating past the point of about 30 000 ot 50 000 completely impossible. regardless Your pottery at the Jericho site does not eat plants :o) so cannot be dated by carbon 14. only ink for instance made with plants could be dated in this fashion and then the accuracy of the test again comes into question. i'm really not gonna teach you science! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

even if you could disprove the Bible this topic is about your atheistic reasoning of how there is no God! and you have demonstrated no reason to believe my theory incorrect (other than your emotions) It is a FACT that atheists reason the way i stated in my POST and those who have replied have proven my point :o) your weak attempt to try and discredit the Bible in an attempt to discredit the existence of God is the weakest of arguments. and poorly executed by you. your welcome to keep trying but all your stupid attempts have been answered b numerous Christians. you bringing it up AGAIN merely points to you biased study of this subject.

14 More Responses