Question for Atheists ( Who doesnt believe to existence of God)

Imad. Is there a dot (.) somewhere in your keyboard?
I tried to read your post but its too irritating. Try to you the '.' more often, the ',' less often.
Every paragraph of yours is like a neverending German sentence.

But to summarize your post here is a great sentence:

Sure it is.
Humans exist.
God doesn't.
Very different indeed.

 

But:
god can be "mad". god has wishes. god is merciful. god wants this, god hates that. god is a male. god even speaks with people and angels. no?
You see god as a man. Atheists don't see any god at all. For atheists god is like little red riding hood. a legend, a joke. not a man.
For you its a man. Did I say already that you can't tell the difference between complete opposites?

We did not reach anything. We are not brainwashed by our parents / school system.
People believe in god because they are brainwashed that god exists before they know to read and write, nonetheless to think for themselves. All gods and all religions are the same: none is "smarter" than the other. 99.99% of the followers of each religion, regardless of how bizare and ridiculous, were born into the religion. This is enough to indirectly prove that all religions are bullshit.

what you say may sound perfectly smart to you, but it makes no sense. it is self-contradictory. I will not bother to explain why because you will not understand. The quran has many such self-contradictions too.

a theory can not be followed, its a theory. we atheists know that its a theory. we don't "follow" theories.
You follow what other people tell you imad, without seeing a single (real) proof. Follow the BS other people tell you to believe from age 0. You can't resist it, because resisting it will be to resist your society, your parents, yourself. Stopping to believe in crap is a very hard step, believing in crap is much easier and "respected". The tragedy of mankind.

Probably nobody. Like earthquake - natural phenomena. But I really don't know.

enough for now... more sentences to comment in your post but some other time....

 

A modern hypothesis is that, since each dimension is a plane and is sort of wavy, that since we exist between the third and the fourth (out of ten or eleven) the third and fourth collided, creating a bubble. That bubble is our universe, the the focus of the crash is where the big bang occurred.

What this means is that if it happened once, it can happen again... and again... and again... and again. Indeed it likely happens between every dimension, but the interesting thing is that between the third and the fourth there are likely an infinite number of universes of infinite differences and similarities. In fact, every choice, as the law of infinity would dictate, that you make is but one of many different ones you could have made.

Thus every alternative is covered in other universes. If you saw an apple and decided not to eat it, well, in another universe, since they are infinite, you would have eaten the apple, and that would be the only difference. It could be that they are nearly identical. But through what is known as the butterfly effect, tiny - almost insignificant - choices or differences in what happen can have huge outcomes.

What if that apple you ate ended up being the one thing that pushed you over the edge and you got a cavity. That cavity sends you to the dentist, who makes a mistake resulting in a lawsuit. That lawsuit bankrupts the dentist, who then out of money, losing his family, and his livelihood takes out his rage with a gun. Through that action a new president takes office, and following that World War Three begins due to poor leadership - while here in this universe none of that has happened because you did not eat the apple.

We have now reached the level where we can explain the big bang. What we cannot yet explain are the dimensional planes. We'll get there though... I mean, although this is a hypothesis, it is pretty much on the money that dimensional collisions cause the formation of universes. Imagine one between the fourth and fifth dimension though - where the laws of physics and of energy could be (and likely are) vastly different than that which exists between the third and fourth dimension. One day we may be able to break the barrier of our own universe and travel to another one within our two dimensional planes of existence. However, it would be nearly impossible to jump to a different in-between so to speak.

Math does not lie. Physics, well, that is applied mathematics.

 

That's way to complicated! Magic man done it!!! Lol

 

I hold a phD in physics and I didn't quite understand what you are talking about. are you sure that Imad would?

 

what made you think that our universe is limited to this bubble? by definition, universe is the whole world, so whatever outside this bubble, is also part of the universe even if we did not discover it yet,

in the past, the universe for human beings was Earth, Sun, Moon, some planets, and stars, that was universe, as their knowledge increased, they discovered our Solar system, that was the universe, and later, they discovered other solar systems, still this is universe, then discovered our galaxy, and other galaxies, and so on.. still this is also part of universe, so universe, is the whole world, what we discovered, and what we did not discovered yet,

outside this bubble, there can be other bubbles, maybe with space or vacuum in between them, all these bubble might be contained in a bigger bubble, outside this bigger bubble, there might be other bigger bubbles, and so on ...

still, all this does not answer the question of who found (created) all of this? in the contrary, it makes this question, more insisting.

 

I tried to summarize. Membrane Theory is what I am speaking of.

 

imads logic is to simply claim his particular magic man is responsible for the thing that happened just before the thing that was just explained to him. You could explain absolutely everything to him and he will say "well who done that?"

All the religious have now are excuses to believe and no good reason.

 

Sorry i just had to quote that.

 

the question in my original post here, was who caused the big bang? was still unanswered, if you can answer, go ahead, nobody is stopping you,

and I have to quote this

 

What do you mean who caused the big bang? The question is what caused it.

That definition of universe is wrong, very wrong.

 

my question was "who" not "what", check the post again, "what" caused you to reply here, is my post, but "who" replied, it is you, see the difference, easy to understand, isn't it?

correct it ...

 

Well your question supposes something that isn't supported and is an invalid question... it would be like me asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".

The question it's self supposes that your particular unsupported bullshit idea is the correct one and doesn't allow for any answer other than "magic man done it". To answer that particular flawed, ilogical, invalid question we would have to suppose that the cause is specifically a who and not a what.

get it?

 

I already know that you do not believe in God, and I do not believe in "a magical man", I believe in God, no wonder that you do not believe in God when your definition of him is "a magical man"

the question of "when did you stop beating your wife?" will be:

A- invalid if: 1- I was not married, or 2- if I never beat my wife, or 3- if I did not stop beating my wife.
B- Valid if: 1- I was married, and 2- been beating my wife, and 3- stopped beating her


to say it is invalid, you should know at least one of 3:

to know that I m not married
to know I do not beat my wife
to know I didn't stop beating my wife

to know it is valid, you should know that I am married, and I was beating my wife, and I stopped beating my wife.

using this as an example, explain how you concluded that the question of "who caused the big bang?" is invalid?

knowing "what" caused big bang, does not mean there was no "who"? same as in the example above, knowing what caused your reply to my post, does not mean your post posted itself by itself.

I believe in God, because what I know about God, you do not believe in God, because what you know about the magical man, this gets me back to my original post here, which I hope you read it again, that if you read it.

 

I can't help but be slightly amused that imad used wife beating as an example.

Also, Stox, you must feel like you are bashing your head against a brick wall - I did, and I was only reading it.

imad, when there is a blackout during a severe storm do you ask "who" is to blame as opposed to "what"?

Does your God cause the blackout?

If no, please explain why you assume the big bang was caused by a who rather than a what.

If yes, please provide 200 words on why your God wants you to have a blackout. (Also, if there is a God and he does cause your blackouts then he is not your God, but that of us noble "infidels", as he is giving us the gift of your absence from the forums.)

 

good question.
Not even a "blackout" of a severe storm. But also a simple flu.
You know it wasn't god, it was just a virus. don't you?
Then why you assume (differentiate from: know) that god was responsible for the big bang?

This is just the most funny thing about religious people:
Only after all scientists already accepted a certain theory and it is in complete consensus, only then the religious people start to accept it.

The big bang was predicted theoretically in 1922 and again independently in 1927. First data that is evidence of the expansion was collected in 1929, since then a lot of more data was collected to establish it as a fact. In the scientific community, the big bang is in concensus since the 50's.
The religious people finally accepted it to be true only in the 2000's.

And don't miss the proof that the earth is flat:
http://islam-watch.org/Logical/Proof-Quran-thinks-Earth-is-Flat.htm

If I banged my head against the wall every time Imad was not able to understand the ABC of modern era thinking, my brain damage would probably have been so severe that I might have been able to read his posts and "understand" them.

 

If god existed, I don't think he would *need* us to believe in him anyway.

So why bother?

 

Seeing God himself, Rather than just people who believe in him. Belief in something there is no proof for is a bit pointless, as then i can say to you: WHo are you to say there isn't a dinosaur locked in my basement somewhere? Who are you to say my arm isn't made out of chocolate cleverly disguised as skin.

 

~ Oh really, and the original scientists were not the clergy with the same certainty of thought, and the clergy and the scientist can not be the same by your definition.

~ The Edenist understand that both fact and belief will have the same meaning when a subject is substantiated.

~ God is not the universe - "Big Bang" the ridiculous scientific theory, is the emergence of God in physical form and all that is studied is a study of God however the understanding of life will not occur but by the action's of ones own making.

 

I like your Style, Mr Trivia.