Why there almost certainly is No God!!

[4Figgy]

As complex as a single cell organism is and as difficult as it is to figure out the riddle of abiogenisis, it would be a trillion trillion trillion trillion^infinity times more difficult for an all knowing supreme being to exist without being created by another creator leading to an infinite regress of creators.

At some point you have to go with the data you have. We seem to have a universe that becomes more and more complex through entropy. God of the gaps is work of the lazy when we still haven't even come close to the exhausting and collecting the data we could to explain our natural universe, using the concepts of naturalism.

Deism could once be used to explain what we see. However that has never really had a large following, it's always been a religion based on collected writings from primitive backwards cultures that are somehow wise by default because they lived long in the past. We romanticize these idiots for a reason I can't comprehend. However if we look around today the vast majority of humans are dumbshits that I wouldn't trust stocking the shelves of my local supermarket. And that's coming from a present society where a six year old has more understanding of the universe than any goat herding child raping middle easterner had 2000 years ago.

Incorrect. Since God created time itself he is outside of time, which does not apply to him. Therefore, nothing is required to come before him.

I am not using a god of the gaps argument for anything. Science says we have a universe that started a finite time ago. The naturalist has to explain how the universe came into existence out of nothing, which in itself cannot be done. Steven Hawking had to resort to “the universe created itself”. We all know logically that something cannot create itself.

As for you third paragraph I would point to the debate I posted above for further answers to many arguments you have, and probably will make.

 

[4Figgy]

The historicity of Jesus just isn't there. There is not independent eye witness accounts to anything Jesus did. You have the writings of biased followers, Pauls(he never met Jesus) writings come about 20 years after Jesus was supposedly executed. The first gospel of Mark seems to have been written 30 years after.

Most people back than might have lived to be 40 if they were extremely lucky.

So who wrote these anonymous writings. We find many of these writings were written not by who they were claimed to have been written by. At least 7 of Pauls letters appear to be written by someone else. The gospels appear to serve the purpose to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah even though the idea of a Messiah that dies and doesn't bring world peace contradicts the Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah Chapter 53 has a description of a man that is treated like what is written in the gospels, the question is these Old Testament writings were clearly available in the form of the Septuagint written in Koine Greek, which is the language of the New Testament. So pouring through the Sep. would allow you to cherry pick and create a Gospel that lines up with these OT writings.

It would be one thing if you'd found out that these writings were predicted by cultures all over the world separated by bodies of waters, they all wrote down the exact same words at the same time in their own languages, but we don't have that. There's nothing supernatural involved. We have scribes that sit down to write a very well written story to fit the agenda of a group that insists this was the messiah, an idea that was eagerly awaited.

So what makes this a supernatural act. Seems like something any of us could carry out if we wanted.

This is on the historicity of Jesus:

 

[Villain]

Zepp has passed away. He's no longer with us, lets bow our heads and have a moment of silence to remember him.

Lol, why change handles? You forget your password?

 

[martino]

Incorrect. Since God created time itself he is outside of time, which does not apply to him. Therefore, nothing is required to come before him.

I am not using a god of the gaps argument for anything. Science says we have a universe that started a finite time ago. The naturalist has to explain how the universe came into existence out of nothing, which in itself cannot be done. Steven Hawking had to resort to “the universe created itself”. We all know logically that something cannot create itself.

As for you third paragraph I would point to the debate I posted above for further answers to many arguments you have, and probably will make.

Well if something can't just exist, then how can a god just exist. That's magical thinking.

The problem is from what we can detect from red shifted light 14 billion years into the past. We live in this time period that we can detect just a small sliver of the universe. We assume that they are mirror images of an expanding universe that had a beginning. These are models that fit the data. However do we have all the data. I don't think so. There's scientists that question the big bang, some are laughed at, but they have their own theories and should be reviewed to see what is possible.

Those humans that might be around billions of years into the future will live in a cold dark universe where stars have burned out, where bodies are further separated, where the red shifted light will be much harder to detect. We really have a limited window to get an infrared telescope into space to see what is left and even then it will be of limited use.

We may never know the answer and I'm perfectly fine with that, I accept the "I don't know" in life. I have no clue why the religious are so full of shit that they can't bring themselves to admit they don't know, they're just asserting that they know from whatever religion they happened to be born into.

The concept that God invented time and space is a presupposition that has no data to support it. It's just what we hear Christians yack on about, these amateur philosophers that are trying to pretend they know something based on the collected writings of goat herders, as they use word salad to try to explain something into existence.

 

[Villain]

Well if something can't just exist, then how can a god just exist. That's magical thinking.

Uh, that’s what makes God God. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[martino]

Uh, that’s what makes God God. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Because it's incoherent. A single cell organism can't just exist according to the bible brainwashed, but suddenly an all powerful all knowing god can just exist without being created before space and time existed and can will a Universe into existence by just thinking it, a Universe with trillions of Galaxies.

From amino acids, lipids to form a cell wall I could see how the building blocks of a single celled organism could evolve in an environment rich in organics given millions of years of evolution.

A GOD that just exists, a complicated supernatural being. Especially a God named Yahweh that happens to be apart of the Canaanite pantheon of gods starting with EL. Looks like a man made God to me. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

 

[Villain]

Because it's incoherent. A single cell organism can't just exist according to the bible brainwashed, but suddenly an all powerful all knowing god can just exist without being created before space and time existed and can will a Universe into existence by just thinking it, a Universe with trillions of Galaxies.

From amino acids, lipids to form a cell wall I could see how the building blocks of a single celled organism could evolve in an environment rich in organics given millions of years of evolution.

A GOD that just exists, a complicated supernatural being. Especially a God named Yahweh that happens to be apart of the Canaanite pantheon of gods starting with EL. Looks like a man made God to me. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

And yet we’re the brainwashed ones to believe God exists with no beginning or end but you’re sane to believe the Big Bang just happened and formed everything? Gotcha.

 

[4Figgy]

Well if something can't just exist, then how can a god just exist. That's magical thinking.

The problem is from what we can detect from red shifted light 14 billion years into the past. We live in this time period that we can detect just a small sliver of the universe. We assume that they are mirror images of an expanding universe that had a beginning. These are models that fit the data. However do we have all the data. I don't think so. There's scientists that question the big bang, some are laughed at, but they have their own theories and should be reviewed to see what is possible.

Those humans that might be around billions of years into the future will live in a cold dark universe where stars have burned out, where bodies are further separated, where the red shifted light will be much harder to detect. We really have a limited window to get an infrared telescope into space to see what is left and even then it will be of limited use.

We may never know the answer and I'm perfectly fine with that, I accept the "I don't know" in life. I have no clue why the religious are so full of shit that they can't bring themselves to admit they don't know, they're just asserting that they know from whatever religion they happened to be born into.

The concept that God invented time and space is a presupposition that has no data to support it. It's just what we hear Christians yack on about, these amateur philosophers that are trying to pretend they know something based on the collected writings of goat herders, as they use word salad to try to explain something into existence.

There is plenty I don’t know as a Christian. I argue from a Christian worldview which to me is logically explained through Jesus and the Bible. If God exists, then it is perfectly sound to say he created time, space, matter, and energy. There is absolutely nothing illogical about that argument.

Dr Craig is anything but an amateur philosopher. “Word salad” has been used again! And again, just because you don’t understand the words of the arguments, doesn’t mean they are invalid. An advanced vocabulary is a sign of high intelligence, not the lack of it.

 

[4Figgy]

Because it's incoherent. A single cell organism can't just exist according to the bible brainwashed, but suddenly an all powerful all knowing god can just exist without being created before space and time existed and can will a Universe into existence by just thinking it, a Universe with trillions of Galaxies.

From amino acids, lipids to form a cell wall I could see how the building blocks of a single celled organism could evolve in an environment rich in organics given millions of years of evolution.

A GOD that just exists, a complicated supernatural being. Especially a God named Yahweh that happens to be apart of the Canaanite pantheon of gods starting with EL. Looks like a man made God to me. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

It is the opposite of incoherent. It is the simplest coherent explanation there could possibly be. Wow......

 

[Villain]

It is the opposite of incoherent. It is the simplest coherent explanation there could possibly be. Wow......

Lol, incoherent but the Big Bang is coherent. Lol, I’m afraid to admit this guy has more faith than I do!

 

[martino]

There is plenty I don’t know as a Christian. I argue from a Christian worldview which to me is logically explained through Jesus and the Bible. If God exists, then it is perfectly sound to say he created time, space, matter, and energy. There is absolutely nothing illogical about that argument.

Dr Craig is anything but an amateur philosopher. “Word salad” has been used again! And again, just because you don’t understand the words of the arguments, doesn’t mean they are invalid. An advanced vocabulary is a sign of high intelligence, not the lack of it.

If you are in the employment of bible believers, if you depend on their charity to your service, if your income depends on making sure you follow their mission statement and declare your unwavering faith. How can you expect someone like this to be unbiased in the information they put forth?

Science allows for others to contradict your findings. It not only does that, it demands that you come along and try to prove others wrong, in some cases destroying careers.

If someone like Craig came along and said, you know I think this God stuff is really bullshit after all. He'd be kicked of his teaching gig, he'd find himself in a situation where that money isn't rolling in.

Some can make the same argument about scientists, but eventually if someone is putting forth a theory that is wrong, there will be others that come along and destroy it. Some people hung onto every theory Einstein ever put forth, but several of his theories have been proven wrong, it's not that he wan't brilliant, but wrong is wrong no matter if you're a genius or not.

 

[martino]

Lol, incoherent but the Big Bang is coherent. Lol, I’m afraid to admit this guy has more faith than I do!

Actually Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest Georges Lamaitre Physicist, Astronomer, Mathematician that proved it with mathematics. At that time the most popular model was a static unchanging universe, however the math lined up with an expanding universe that started with a singularity based on the velocity at which the galaxies are moving away from each other at ever increasing velocity, if we reverse the process we find that they come together at a single point. Just like if I exploded a grenade, I could figure out the point at which the explosion took place, but in this case in all directions coming back together.

 

[4Figgy]

Actually Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest Georges Lamaitre Physicist, Astronomer, Mathematician that proved it with mathematics. At that time the most popular model was a static unchanging universe, however the math lined up with an expanding universe that started with a singularity based on the velocity at which the galaxies are moving away from each other at ever increasing velocity, if we reverse the process we find that they come together at a single point. Just like if I exploded a grenade, I could figure out the point at which the explosion took place, but in this case in all directions coming back together.

You are completely missing his point. The Big Bang is the start of the universe from nothing, which is a larger leap of faith than believing in God creating the universe with the Big Bang.

 

[4Figgy]

If you are in the employment of bible believers, if you depend on their charity to your service, if your income depends on making sure you follow their mission statement and declare your unwavering faith. How can you expect someone like this to be unbiased in the information they put forth?

Science allows for others to contradict your findings. It not only does that, it demands that you come along and try to prove others wrong, in some cases destroying careers.

If someone like Craig came along and said, you know I think this God stuff is really bullshit after all. He'd be kicked of his teaching gig, he'd find himself in a situation where that money isn't rolling in.

Some can make the same argument about scientists, but eventually if someone is putting forth a theory that is wrong, there will be others that come along and destroy it. Some people hung onto every theory Einstein ever put forth, but several of his theories have been proven wrong, it's not that he wan't brilliant, but wrong is wrong no matter if you're a genius or not.

I don’t expect Craig to be unbiased, lol. EVERYONE who is familiar with him knows he is a Christian. His debates are all online, and in my opinion he hasn’t lost a single one. His arguments are very well thought out, and not once have I seen anyone disprove them or show any inconsistencies in them. It is what I also expect from atheists. They will argue from their worldview.

Just because someone is biased doesn’t mean they are wrong.

 

[Villain]

You are completely missing his point. The Big Bang is the start of the universe from nothing, which is a larger leap of faith than believing in God creating the universe with the Big Bang.

Martino/Zepp: doesn’t believe in God or the concept that something eternal has existed with no beginning but embraces what a catholic priest says about everything coming from absolutely nothing via a random explosion. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Who or what created the universe? Out of what did it get created from? Yet believes science has it all figured out

 

[martino]

So you guys believe something immaterial wills material into existence by a little shaazzamm!!

It's entirely possible life could have been seeded to this planet from another area of our galaxy or even another universe. Just like everything that makes this planet up was once hurling through space crashing into a ball of fire, eventually a planet covered with water. There's no reason to think that single and even multi-cell organisms couldn't have hitched a ride to this planet.

As for the big bang starting from nothing. Why does it have to be nothing, why couldn't it be part of a multiverse an infinite number of universes branching off each other.

As for Craig never being proven wrong. Sean Carroll, who is one of the more brilliant theoretical physicists bent Craig over and spanked his ass in this debate, it was a like a cat batting a mouse around before eating him.

 

[4Figgy]

So you guys believe something immaterial wills material into existence by a little shaazzamm!!

It's entirely possible life could have been seeded to this planet from another area of our galaxy or even another universe. Just like everything that makes this planet up was once hurling through space crashing into a ball of fire, eventually a planet covered with water. There's no reason to think that single and even multi-cell organisms couldn't have hitched a ride to this planet.

As for the big bang starting from nothing. Why does it have to be nothing, why couldn't it be part of a multiverse an infinite number of universes branching off each other.

As for Craig never being proven wrong. Sean Carroll, who is one of the more brilliant theoretical physicists bent Craig over and spanked his ass in this debate, it was a like a cat batting a mouse around before eating him.

Definitely Zepp! “Planted” life on Earth. Sounds like a movie from a while back

I love how you cherry picked one thing from the debate. This shows how confident you are about the whole thing. Here’s the whole debate, and a response later on from Craig about the debate with Carroll. The second video pretty much sums up the actual debate.

 

[martino]

We should also consider that there was no beginning to the universe, that it was eternal and has always existed. Not in its present order, but existed in a form that is beyond our ability to collect data.

Always falling back on God cuts you off from possibilities, it allows the religious to scam, rob and retard our societies to the point they are so helpless they can't do anything but pray while they piss their pants wailing and crying wallowing in their ignorance like our primitive ancestors incapable of solving the most basic of problems.

 

[4Figgy]

We should also consider that there was no beginning to the universe, that it was eternal and has always existed. Not in its present order, but existed in a form that is beyond our ability to collect data.

Always falling back on God cuts you off from possibilities, it allows the religious to scam, rob and retard our societies to the point they are so helpless they can't do anything but pray while they piss their pants wailing and crying wallowing in their ignorance like our primitive ancestors incapable of solving the most basic of problems.

If you believe in eternity as a possibility inside the universe then that’s a conundrum in itself. And current science points to a beginning of the universe. Thats why there is an actual age on it. The only thing science can’t explains is how it came into existence out of nothing. This is the reason for things such as a multiverse. I would argue it is scientists grasping at anything that isn’t what the science currently points to.

 

[martino]

I've already watched the second video. He misrepresented the debate and I'm sure he wouldn't have said the things he said if Carroll had been there to argue with him face to face.

The problem with Craig is that he could just as easily apply his arguments to the existence of Santa or the Lucky Leprechaun that lives in my back yard.