Belief in God strongest in US and Catholic countries, surveys find

Apr 18, 2012

International surveys about the depth of people's belief in God reveal vast differences among nations, ranging from 94 percent of people in the Philippines who said they always believed in God, compared to only 13 percent of people in the former East Germany. Yet the surveys found one constant—belief in God is higher among older people, regardless of where they live.

A new report on the international surveys, "Belief About Across Time and Countries," was issued by the General of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago. It is based on a comprehensive, international study of belief in God and includes information from the International Social Survey Program, a consortium of the world's leading opinion survey organizations. Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey, wrote the report.

The data came from 30 countries in which surveys about belief in God have been taken at least twice, in some cases, since 1991. Researchers asked questions to determine people's range of beliefs, from atheism to strong belief in God; their changing beliefs over their lifetime; and their attitude toward the notion that God is concerned with individuals.

Belief in God varies widely across nations, cultures

Countries with the strongest belief in God tended to be Catholic societies, especially in the developing world, such as the Philippines. The people of the stood out for their high in belief in God among developed countries with large Protestant populations.

Competition among denominations may account for that interest in religion, Smith said.

The surveys found:

  • Atheism is strongest in northwest European countries such as Scandinavia and the former Soviet states (except for Poland). The former East Germany had the highest rate of people who said they never believed in God (59 percent); in comparison, 4 percent of Americans had that response.
  • The country with the strongest belief is the Philippines, where 94 percent of those surveyed said they always had believed in God. In the United States, that response came from 81 percent of people surveyed.
  • Although by most measures, belief in God is gradually declining worldwide, it is increasing in Russia, Slovenia and Israel. In Russia, comparing the difference between those who believe in God but hadn't previously, and those who don't believe in God but used to, researchers found a 16 percent change in favor of belief.
  • Support for the concept that God is concerned with people in a personal way ranged from 8 percent in the former East Germany to 82 percent in the Philippines. In the United States, 68 percent of people surveyed held that view.
"Belief in God has decreased in most countries, but the declines are quite modest especially when calculated on a per annum basis," Smith said.

The constant: Belief in God grows with age

Belief is highest among older adults. On average, 43 percent of those aged 68 and older are certain that God exists, compared with 23 percent of those 27 and younger, according to the report.

"Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality," Smith said.

He noted that the higher level of belief was not simply a cohort effect, in which people carry forward attitudes shaped in younger years.

In the United States, for instance, 54 percent of people younger than 28 said they were certain of God's existence, compared with 66 percent of the people 68 and older.

In countries with low overall , the difference in belief between age groups is also strong. In France, for example, 8 percent of younger people said they were certain that God exists, compared with 26 percent of the people 68 and older. In Austria, 8 percent of the younger generation said they were certain in their , while 32 percent of people 68 and older were confident of God's existence.

The surveys were taken in 1991, 1998 and 2008. These are the included in the survey: Australia, Austria, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Rep, Denmark, France, Germany (East), Germany (West), Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel , Italy, Japan, Latvia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, The , Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

Explore further: Study finds law dramatically curbing need for speed

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Survey finds many doctors religious

Jun 23, 2005

A University of Chicago survey suggests 76 percent of physicians believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

Intuitive thinking may influence belief in God

Sep 20, 2011

Intuition may lead people toward a belief in the divine and help explain why some people have more faith in God than others, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

Poll: Most people reject evolution theory

Mar 08, 2006

A Gallup Poll released Wednesday suggests about 53 percent of Americans rejects the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of humans.

Recommended for you

Study finds law dramatically curbing need for speed

Apr 18, 2014

Almost seven years have passed since Ontario's street-racing legislation hit the books and, according to one Western researcher, it has succeeded in putting the brakes on the number of convictions and, more importantly, injuries ...

Newlyweds, be careful what you wish for

Apr 17, 2014

A statistical analysis of the gift "fulfillments" at several hundred online wedding gift registries suggests that wedding guests are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to buying an appropriate gift for the ...

Can new understanding avert tragedy?

Apr 17, 2014

As a boy growing up in Syracuse, NY, Sol Hsiang ran an experiment for a school project testing whether plants grow better sprinkled with water vs orange juice. Today, 20 years later, he applies complex statistical ...

Creative activities outside work can improve job performance

Apr 16, 2014

Employees who pursue creative activities outside of work may find that these activities boost their performance on the job, according to a new study by San Francisco State University organizational psychologist Kevin Eschleman ...

User comments : 102

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cyberCMDR
4 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
Belief in God increases with age because of Pascal's wager. That is, if you believe in God and die and God exists, you win. If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, no loss because you won't be experiencing an afterlife.
kevinrtrs
1.5 / 5 (25) Apr 18, 2012
belief in God is higher among older people, regardless of where they live.

Maybe it's more because of wisdom, having seen most of the things that go on in life and having asked all the usual questions, the only answer that makes sense and that holds out any hope is that there is a God that CARES.

Ask yourself: how many people got up out of the gutter or stopped taking drugs or committing crimes because someone converted them to evolutionism?

The people of the United States stood out for their high in belief in God among developed countries with large Protestant populations.
Unfortunately, if they keep turning towards scientism/evolutionism the blessing they now experience as a result of their belief in God will evaporate. There's nothing mystical about it, simply that things like respect for others, caring about other people's family and possessions and having a generally more altruistic outlook on life will disappear, leaving only more selfishly inclined attitudes.
CardacianNeverid
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2012
Belief in God increases with age because of Pascal's wager. That is, if you believe in God and die and God exists, you win. If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, no loss because you won't be experiencing an afterlife -cyber

So you're saying god must be pretty stupid not to know that you're hedging your bets? The 'wager' is silly.

This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality -text

That and diminishing cognitive acuity.
stndspec
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
Pascal's wager has been around a long time now, and does not impress recent generations who tend to see right through it - who would want or believe in a god concerned more about technicalities than what's in a person's heart and mind? I'd bet the numbers being larger amongst the older folks is mainly due to the atmosphere they were raised in, which even in recent times was a far more superstitious environment than someone who's grown up with access to the knowledge available on the net. With age comes wisdom if a person is inclined to learn, but the younger to middle-aged folks simply had access to more knowledge than did their forebears.. and that usually corresponds proportionally with a decline in superstitious ideas.
CardacianNeverid
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2012
Maybe it's more because of wisdom having seen most of the things that go on in life and having asked all the usual questions the only answer that makes sense and that holds out any hope is that there is a God that CARES -kevinTard

It might make sense to a tard who fails to answer those questions rationally because he's too dumb and dogmatic to reason and learn.

Ask yourself: how many people got up out of the gutter or stopped taking drugs or committing crimes because someone converted them to evolutionism -Tard

Too easy to turn that around and ask how many started committing crimes because they were indoctrinated in a religion or sect. At least if they were 'converted' to 'evolutionism', it means they have the capacity to think objectively and thus possibly help themselves to a better lifestyle.

Unfortunately, if they keep turning towards scientism/evolutionism the blessing they now experience as a result of their belief in God will evaporate -Tard

Tard of tards!
CardacianNeverid
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2012
With age comes wisdom if a person is inclined to learn, but the younger to middle-aged folks simply had access to more knowledge than did their forebears.. and that usually corresponds proportionally with a decline in superstitious ideas -stndspec

You would think so, but look at kevin's post - generated on a computer connected to the world wide web of knowledge.

The Oracle cannot teach you if you refuse to ask the right questions and are not prepared to listen. People, like tard boy kevin, tend to hang out in communities of like minded individuals, and then for kicks they troll science sites before retreating back to their dank dungeons of irrationality.
Squirrel
3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
Behavior tells a different story: the actual behavior of people who say they believe in God suggests they in fact do not. Instead, their so called "belief in God" is merely words and only affects behavior where it is for public show to other "believers". Behaviorally there are probably no more than a few thousand Christians in the US--to find them check out who helps out at soup kitchens.
CardacianNeverid
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
Behaviorally there are probably no more than a few thousand Christians in the US--to find them check out who helps out at soup kitchens -Squirrely

You sayin atheists don't help in soup kitchens? If not, what's your point?
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
With age comes dementia, not wisdom.
Also older people are from older generations.
They are dumber than the new generations.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
It is more likely due to the loss of brain cells, and the corresponding loss of ability to think rationally.

"Maybe it's more because of wisdom" - Kevin

Magical thinking is a mental disorder.

dogbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012
kaasiness,
With age comes dementia, not wisdom.

Also older people are from older generations.
They are dumber than the new generations.


Really? So the people who created the industrial age, including automobiles, electronic communications, the electric power grid, etc. are dumber than the Occupy movement?

panorama
3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
Behaviorally there are probably no more than a few thousand Christians in the US--to find them check out who helps out at soup kitchens.

Let's hope so, Jesus was an asshole.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
Maybe it's more because of wisdom, having seen most of the things that go on in life
I have never observed anything tantamount to wisdom being conveyed in your writings.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012

Really? So the people who created the industrial age, including automobiles, electronic communications, the electric power grid, etc. are dumber than the Occupy movement?


No fuck tard i am saying intellects from a new generation are more intelligent than the intellects from the older generation.
John_balls
3 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
Hence , the reason why the u.s. is in it's decline.
John_balls
5 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2012
belief in God is higher among older people, regardless of where they live.


Ask yourself: how many people got up out of the gutter or stopped taking drugs or committing crimes because someone converted them to evolutionism?

The people of the United States stood out for their high in belief in God among developed countries with large Protestant populations.
Unfortunately, if they keep turning towards scientism/evolutionism the blessing they now experience as a result of their belief in God will evaporate. There's nothing mystical about it, simply that things like respect for others, caring about other people's family and possessions and having a generally more altruistic outlook on life will disappear, leaving only more selfishly inclined attitudes.

What a load of dung comparing religion/god to evolution. Get off these boards with this ignorant tripe.
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
Child molestation is also highest in catholic countries.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
"the blessing they now experience as a result of their belief in God will evaporate." Blessings like having sex with the alter boys every Sunday morning. I have to agree with Kaasiness - the newer generation of intellectuals are head and shoulders above the older 'wise ones'. The final revolution is happening - and the magical thinkers understand that their time is passing. Here is a great deconstruction of religious thinking by PZ Myers http://freethough...-of-god/
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
Pascals wager doesn't work, anyways, as soon as there are two or more gods possible. People have invented thousands of gods. Are you going to pretend to belive in Osiris and risk offending Thor?

i am saying intellects from a new generation are more intelligent than the intellects from the older generation.

Hardly. Just because we can use the knowledge they didn't have (and which they created) doesn't make us more intelligent.

Why are older people more likely to believe? Think about how indoctrination worked while THEY were still children (sunday schools and whatnot). Also poorer people are more likley to believe, Generally I suspect anyone who is in a position where they cannot affect change are likely to seek a way to change that.
If no real possibilities exist then illusory ones are the only psychological way out.
rubberman
5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
LOL....the only majority non caucasian countries in the survey are Japan and the Phillipines. How do the other 6 billion people on Earth feel about "God"? . I don't discount the belief that in the infinite universe many "higher powers" exist....I'm pretty sure they really don't give a s**t what we are doing....I guess this makes me an Atheist...and I have volunteered at a soup kitchen.
Anorion
4.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
The other invalid assumption in Pascal's wager is that there is no harm in believing in a non-existent god. However, there is. It's a waste of time, a waste of a precious, finite amount of time.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
Not a single Muslim country was included, even though Islam is probably the world's most powerful and numerous religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012
Atheism is prevalent in Europe because their history is full of horrors caused by religion. Two world wars and communist martial law was what it took to break the back of the ancient obsolete religionist cultures which generated centuries of overgrowth and the resultant suffering and conflict.

What will it take here in the US? Orthodox religions are the fastest growing groups. There is no reason to expect that they will stop growing when they can no longer support themselves. And when their children begin to starve they will blame this on each other as usual, and upon YOU. There will be demonstrations, and extremist threats, and violence, and yet more misery.

Euros want no more of this and are glad to be rid of the process which continues to cause misery and ruin throughout Africa and the middle east. Except they are now faced with exploding minorities of their own. And so people like breveik appear. Is he any worse than a truck bomber in Lebanon? Of course not. Only inevitable.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...

"Highest" living standards?
Define 'highest'.
Anorion
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...

"Highest" living standards?
Define 'highest'.
acces to quality education, quality jobs, to quality habitation, quality food for all, free aces to quality health care, high social security in case you cant work or loose work, social peace ( no street gangs like in usa or so), low overall violent crime rate, high freedom of speech, freedom of sexual orientation, and any other freedom you can think of... all that you find it in Scandinavia, and some or all of it lack in more religious country
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2012
Atheism is prevalent in Europe because their history is full of horrors caused by religion

It's because they were theocracies for so long. Those that could escape persecution to the US abolished state religion and prevented the state prohibiting free exercise of religion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...

"Highest" living standards?
Define 'highest'.
acces to quality education, quality jobs, to quality habitation, quality food for all, free aces to quality health care, high social security in case you cant work or loose work, social peace ( no street gangs like in usa or so), low overall violent crime rate, high freedom of speech, freedom of sexual orientation, and any other freedom you can think of... all that you find it in Scandinavia, and some or all of it lack in more religious country

Been to Malmo lately? I hear the police are afraid of the gangs.
Sounds like a nice gilded cage with little freedom to buy a nice house or a car.
Anorion
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...

"Highest" living standards?
Define 'highest'.
acces to quality education, quality jobs, to quality habitation, quality food for all, free aces to quality health care, high social security in case you cant work or loose work, social peace ( no street gangs like in usa or so), low overall violent crime rate, high freedom of speech, freedom of sexual orientation, and any other freedom you can think of... all that you find it in Scandinavia, and some or all of it lack in more religious country

Been to Malmo lately? I hear the police are afraid of the gangs.
Sounds like a nice gilded cage with little freedom to buy a nice house or a car.
You hear ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
Atheism is prevalent in Europe because their history is full of horrors caused by religion

It's because they were theocracies for so long. Those that could escape persecution to the US abolished state religion and prevented the state prohibiting free exercise of religion.
Correct. This is the tendency of any religion isn't it? To rule the people for their own good? And not just within any one country, but to spread themselves worldwide? 'By propagation or by the sword.'

Jesus and the prophets certainly did not teach democracy. God (and his holymen) know what's best for the people. The people, if left to their own ends, would only worship golden calves and consort with canaanites. Temptation is however useful in separating wheat from chaff, culling the unworthy, so that the Remnant can inherit the kingdom?
Anorion
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2012
Atheism is prevalent in Europe because their history is full of horrors caused by religion

It's because they were theocracies for so long. Those that could escape persecution to the US abolished state religion and prevented the state prohibiting free exercise of religion.
Correct. This is the tendency of any religion isn't it? To rule the people for their own good? And not just within any one country, but to spread themselves worldwide? 'By propagation or by the sword.'

Jesus and the prophets certainly did not teach democracy. God (and his holymen) know what's best for the people. The people, if left to their own ends, would only worship golden calves and consort with canaanites. Temptation is however useful in separating wheat from chaff, culling the unworthy, so that the Remnant can inherit the kingdom?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Calenur
5 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...

"Highest" living standards?
Define 'highest'.


You're being willfully obtuse. You know exactly what he's talking about, and the knowledge is available to you on the internet. Lucky day, you're using the internet right now, so use some of those tubes to LOOK UP SOME GODDAMN INFORMATION. You're welcome to look up benefits, health care, crime rates, standard of living, happiness index, and any number of other things which will illustrate his argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers...

"Highest" living standards?
Define 'highest'.


You're being willfully obtuse. You know exactly what he's talking about, and the knowledge is available to you on the internet. Lucky day, you're using the internet right now, so use some of those tubes to LOOK UP SOME GODDAMN INFORMATION. You're welcome to look up benefits, health care, crime rates, standard of living, happiness index, and any number of other things which will illustrate his argument.

I know a lot of Scandinavian expats who don't care too much for the costs of those 'high' standards.
Sweden recently repealed its wealth tax so maybe the costs of such 'high' standards are getting too high?
Calenur
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012

I know a lot of Scandinavian expats who don't care too much for the costs of those 'high' standards.
Sweden recently repealed its wealth tax so maybe the costs of such 'high' standards are getting too high?


You're anecdotal shit is just that. Watch this: I know a lot of scandanavians who LOVE their standard of living. They also told me those expats were kicked out for being child-molesting religious nutjobs. I know them though, so it's fact.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2012
I noticed during my stay in Scandinavia (Finland and Norway) the people drank a lot of alcohol.
So much so many started illegally making their own.
If the standard of living is sooo high there, why to they have get drunk so often? What are they escaping from is life is so great?
I have observe those who have little hope tend to try to escape regardless of their economic circumstances.
How easy is it for anyone in Scandinavia to work hard and profit from that hard work? I observed this was not easy. Sure, you can work hard, but the govt will just tax you more and your neighbors will try and tear you down, Jante's law.
BTW, what choices are available for autos? What are the taxes to buy a car in Scandinavia for personal use?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (45) Apr 18, 2012
How can one define the term "living standards" to a Libertarian who denies that "living standards" exist?

To a Libertarian/Randite like RyggTard, being forced to pimp your underage daughter in order to purchase dinner is not only protected Libertarian commerce, it is sacred commerce.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Apr 18, 2012
Which is why it is legal in America to marry your own daughter if or randomly blow up buses if your religion permits it.

Oh.. Wait... That is only legal in RyggTard's Libertarian vision of America.

"Those that could escape persecution to the US abolished state religion and prevented the state prohibiting free exercise of religion." - RyggTard
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
"the people drank a lot of alcohol." I think most of us athiests like to enjoy an alcoholic beverage - we also like to eat, have fun at parties, and have sex. It is sure liberating not have to live with all that guilt crap.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
In other words the flat tax that everyone was paying - including the wealthy will now be paid by the middle class and pensioners.

"Sweeden's Wealth tax is today 1.5 percent on amounts over 1.5 million kronor ($215,000) for single people. For cohabitees and married couples this amount is 3 million. The state's takings from wealth tax were 4.8 billion kronor in 2005.

The abolition of the tax will partly be funded by limiting the size of tax reductions on pension savings."

"Sweden recently repealed its wealth tax so maybe the costs of such 'high' standards are getting too high?" - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. He just wasn't bright enough to see that the tax repeal was revenue neutral.

He desperately needs create massive amounts of government debt as the Libertarian/Randite's have done in America.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (43) Apr 18, 2012
Yes, it is criminal what Republicans and Libertarians have done to America.

"Been to Malmo lately? I hear the police are afraid of the gangs." - RyggTard

We generally don't have that kind of problem here in the Socialist states.

Au-Pu
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2012
Belief increases with age. So does senility. The more feeble they become the more likely they are to accept the stupidity of some religious concept or other. Whichever grabs them first. They are to be pitied.
There is no logical reason to believe in any mythical beings.
The ancient Greeks and Romans and others before them had legions of them and they have all been proven to be symply fantasies created by men. The Talmud, The Bible, The Koran and all the others are all the fantasies of men.
It is time we broke free of superstition.
Au-Pu
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
Anion's comment of April 18th is beautifully succinct and on the money, all religions are about money and power. They should all be taxed but no government would be game to take them on and at various times in various countries governments have been terrified of whatever the dominant religion was and had to kowtow to it. We see that today in most Islamic countries. The result is that religious maniacs rise to influence.
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
There is no reason to believe in mythical gods that are themselves created and are supposed to live on mount Olympus. The evidence can simply be evaluated and conclusive proof follows: they do not exist.

The analogy with the God of the Bible is false however. He does have all the properties which God needs to have to qualify as God. An almighty, omnipresent, uncreated, eternal, spiritual Mind is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of nature for life, the existence of objective morality, the meaning of life and a host of other things. Atheism on the other hand stands on exactly nothing but subjective emotions.
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
An almighty, omnipresent, uncreated, eternal, spiritual Mind is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe...

So why do you make all your prayers to Amun-Ra, the shape-shifting god who could imitate all gods, giving birth to monotheism? Why do you hold up your hands to catch the penis rays emanating from the sun? Why do you put your hands together and bow on your knees to give fellatio to the holy penis? Why do you raise your hand, extending your two index fingers with curled thumb, suggesting that you are urinating on your subjects with your power penis of creation? Why don't you worship Atun, the god who created the universe by masturbating? Why do you tell the story of the "lamb of god", which refers to the god Apollo having sex with a sheep?
Deathclock
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
There is no reason to believe in mythical gods that are themselves created and are supposed to live on mount Olympus. The evidence can simply be evaluated and conclusive proof follows: they do not exist.

The analogy with the God of the Bible is false however. He does have all the properties which God needs to have to qualify as God. An almighty, omnipresent, uncreated, eternal, spiritual Mind is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of nature for life, the existence of objective morality, the meaning of life and a host of other things. Atheism on the other hand stands on exactly nothing but subjective emotions.


Stupid. Go away, troll.
okyesno
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
Deafclock: no stay and try to offer a rational argument instead of emotion. Your atheism is based on feelings. Try reason.
Deathclock
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
You're a troll, you're probably one of the handful of people who have a sick compulsion to do this on this website ad naseum, going through dozens of different user names. I'm all but positive I have taken you or one of your aliases seriously more than once now as I have been posting here for many years. There is no point entertaining you since the definition of insanity is in fact doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I have done this with you before, probably many times, and nothing ever changes. Why should I bother to go through all this again?
Anorion
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
Why do christians worship a dead jew on a stick ?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
Because 'worshipping a bunch of child molesting drunkards' was already taken.

I'm all but positive I have taken you or one of your aliases seriously more than once now as I have been posting here for many years.

He's just a masochist. Being beaten down repeatedly for his childish views makes him come.
panorama
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Why do christians worship a dead jew on a stick ?

If you're going that literal, it be the catholics who worship the jew on a stick. The rest of the christians just worship the stick.
ccr5Delta32
5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012

Been to Malmo lately? I hear the police are afraid of the gangs.
Sounds like a nice gilded cage with little freedom to buy a nice house or a car.

Yes a week ago and I don't recognize your description.
I think your referencing that CBN (The C is for Christian) by Dale(Jihad Driving School) Hurd ,a friend of Pat (Not a Geologist) Robertson "seriously Rygg ? " You believe your own propaganda

BTW, what choices are available for autos? What are the taxes to buy a car in Scandinavia for personal use

Koennisegg for example if I want one locally manufactured http://www.koenigsegg.com/
or anything even an American brute if I wish
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
If you're going that literal, it be the catholics who worship the jew on a stick. The rest of the christians just worship the stick.

The stick has no historical reference. Criminals were tied to trees. The Roman tropaion was a wax figure mounted on sticks, later in an X shape, giving tribute to a god. When Cesar died, a tropaion was made in effigy of him, and for him, given all Roman emperors were god

CHRIS/CROSS/CRUX/CRUC/CHRIST (all these terms derived from the greek word for Wax) which is KERU() of which literately refers to the WAX effigy of Caesar - WAX is Solid OIL, and Christ is suppose to mean "Anointed One" Literately (MAN OF OIL) or as in wax (MAN OF WAX)

The Greek for body is "Soma" to combined Keru with Soma = Kerusoma > Chrisma. Notice the Last letter of the word WAX is X(a Cross) cntd...
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Yes, Julius Caesar was Killed on the Ides of Nisan as did Jesus
Julius/Jesus was Stabbed by the same Roman Assassin "Longinus"

Julius Caesar was Mourned by the Jews (JEWLIUS CAESAR)

Julius Caesar's WAX BODY was put on a cross for all to see: the tropaion.

WAX-BODY in Greek is KERUSOMA = Chrism = Christ

Julius Caesar resurrected (Caesar Comet)

Birth of Jesus = Birth of Zeus
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
If you're going that literal, it be the catholics who worship the jew on a stick. The rest of the christians just worship the stick.
Catholics worship the dead guys mom dont they? You know the MOTHER of GOD? And what does that make HER? Have they figured that out yet?
God. An almighty, omnipresent
He wasnt there when adam and eve made clothes or when cain killed his brother etc
uncreated
And still uncreated
eternal, spiritual Mind is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe
Except it doesnt match the evidence which he evidently PUT there
the fine tuning of nature for life, the existence of objective morality
Which is intrinsic in all life. Only religions pervert it to use against their enemies and those they want to keep subservient
the meaning of life and a host of other things.
et cetera et cetera. You see how seriously detached you are? Troll?
okyesno
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Science tells us that the singularity existed before space, time, energy and matter existed. The beginning of the universe therefore cannot be explained by physics. But still everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since this cause cannot be material, it must be immaterial. since abstract objects do not cause anything, the immaterial cause must be a rational and intelligent Mind. God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe. Atheists have nothing to offer here. Even a multiverse cannot avoid a beginning. The origin of the universe strongly supports theism, not atheism.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2012
Science tells us that the singularity existed before space, time, energy and matter existed. The beginning of the universe therefore cannot be explained by physics. But still everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since this cause cannot be material, it must be immaterial. since abstract objects do not cause anything, the immaterial cause must be a rational and intelligent Mind. God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe. Atheists have nothing to offer here. Even a multiverse cannot avoid a beginning. The origin of the universe strongly supports theism, not atheism.


There is no such thing as "origin"... no human has ever witnessed the origin of anything, there is no reason to believe that it is a meaningful concept in physical reality.
ccr5Delta32
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
the immaterial cause must be a rational and intelligent Mind

You just pulled that piece of BS out of your arse and so "therefore you figured if you worship this immaterial concept you get to stay at it's place after you die .
There's only one thing wrong with that idea , It's stupid .
since abstract objects do not cause anything

Geometric shapes can cause structures to acquire strength
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
No origin? Does that mean you reject the big bang and mainstream cosmology? The only alternative would be an eternal universe such as the ancient Greeks espoused. An eternal universe comes with great scienctific and philosophical problems. Modern physics has shown that every expanding universe has a finite series of past events. Second, an eternal universe would need an infinite past, which is practically impossible. Thirdly, some form of matter creation mechanism would be required to overcome eternal heat death. Such a mechanism has never been observed. Am absolute beginning for the universe is unavoidable.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
No origin? Does that mean you reject the big bang and mainstream cosmology?


The big bang theory says NOTHING about the ultimate origin of reality. You don't understand the scientific version of the big bang theory, only the pop culture version.

Modern physics has shown that every expanding universe has a finite series of past events.


No, modern physics does not show that.

Second, an eternal universe would need an infinite past, which is practically impossible.


You're assuming that the realization of past, present, and future, is meaningful outside of the perception of conscious entities.

Thirdly, some form of matter creation mechanism would be required to overcome eternal heat death.


The laws of thermodynamics state that matter/energy is preserved and is not created or destroyed.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
In fact physics does show that the universe has a beginning in time. The Borde Vilekin Guth theorem proves that every expanding relativistic universe or multiverse has a finite past. Even Hawkings no boundary proposal has a finite past. So I would be curious to know what universe model you espouse because it doesn't sound like standard mainstream cosmology.

The second law prohibits an eternal universe because such a universe would be in complete thermal equilibrium for an eternal time, unless there is some mechanism for creation of matter ex nihilo, which there isn't.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
You're still assuming that "time" is meaningful absent of the conscious experience of it. You are falling victim to your own perceptual bias, as most people do. It is difficult to imagine that your perception of reality does not provide an accurate or complete representation of it.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
@okyesno In fact physics does show that the universe has a beginning in time.
There is no such thing as a "beginning in time" when the universe formed. Time is part of spacetime, not separate from it. Your foolish attempts to parrot buzzprases from the Internet failed massively, dogbert. Keep digging down post my rankings because you can't possibly win a debate.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
"In fact physics does show that the universe has a beginning in time. The Borde Vilekin Guth theorem proves that every expanding relativistic universe or multiverse has a finite past. Even Hawkings no boundary proposal has a finite past. So I would be curious to know what universe model you espouse because it doesn't sound like standard mainstream cosmology."

In response to a paper by Mithani and Velenkin arguing, as you have here, that the universe had a beginning, Lenny Susskind has just posted a counter-arguement finding that "for all practical purposes, the universe was past-eternal": http://arxiv.org/...5385.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 25, 2012
What makes you think that the universe had a beginning?

"Atheists have nothing to offer here. Even a multiverse cannot avoid a beginning." - okyesno
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Apr 25, 2012
Isn't this theorem based on existing theory that we know to be incorrect at the limits of the very small and the very large? Exactly where this theorem is being applied.

"The Borde Vilekin Guth theorem proves that every expanding relativistic universe or multiverse has a finite past. " - okyesno
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
If you think that time somehow cannot meaningfully exist apart from human observation then it is up to you to provide proof, for he who avers must prove. As far as standard cosmology goes, the big bang occurred some 13.7 billion years ago. That moment is marked as the beginning of space and time. You are of course entitled to have a different opinion, but then you are moving outside of the realm of mainstream science and into speculation.

There are probably a whole host of alternative and exotic universe models, and everyone has a right to deviate from the norm. But standard cosmology simply denies the existence of an infinite past time. You may not like it, but currently that is the consensus in physics. And this consensus is strongly at odds with any version of an eternal universe. Thus, according to mainstream physics, the universe had a beginning.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
Thus, according to mainstream physics, the universe had a beginning.
@okyesno Only within the spacetime of the universe. Within the larger brane where time may or may not be well defined, or inverted with space as inside a black hole. Regardless any causality may be pinched off at the singularity. The point is that time may have no multiverse analogue, and is no more meaningful that "up" and "down" to a two-dimensional creature. It's laughable that you keep talking about time embedded in the universe and then somehow apart from it. You're like a fish out of water describing everything on land in terms of wetness.

My apologies to cosmologists no doubt I abused some terminology.
okyesno
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
You have all the freedom to disagree with me, but you do not have the freedom to define what standard cosmology is. Again, in standard cosmology time and space came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago at the singularity. That marks the beginning of the universe in both time and space.

As far as the multiverse goes, the Borde/Vilekin/Guth postulate can be extended to a multiverse as well as a cyclical universe. In neither of these universe models an absolute beginning can be avoided. You may not like it, but that is what standard cosmology says. The rest is speculation.
TkClick
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
What makes you think that the universe had a beginning?

From dense aether model follows, every spatially and temporarily limited observer would see its environment is similar way ("simillia simillibus observentur"). The Universe will appear like the water surface observed with its own ripples. Such perspective is necessarily limited, because of dispersion of surface waves in such environment.

But it doesn't mean, whole this environment is limited as such in more general scope. It's just our visibility scope, what is limited here. These two perspectives (intrinsic and extrinsic ones) must be distinguished in every discussion about infiniteness of Universe.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
So from standard cosmology, we know that our universe or multiverse did have a beginning. Now it is common knowledge that everything that begins to exist, has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Some would deny that the universe has a cause. But this means that the universe is either uncaused or self-caused.

If the universe is self-caused, it must exist before it exists. This is a logical contradiction and can be discounted as irrational.

If the universe is uncaused, then that implies everything just magically came from nothing. But this runs contrary to rational human knowledge that from nothing, only nothing comes. Some use the analogy of virtual particles in a quantum field, but that is not true creation ex nihilo. A quantum field is something, for it consists of energy and billions of partciles appearing and disappearing in space and time. But we are talking about a literal nothing: no space, no time, no energy.

So it is safe to say that the universe has a cause.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
So what is the cause of the universe? We have seen that the cause can not be from physics, because physics (space, time and energy) does not exist at the beginning. By definition then the cause is immaterial and exists outside of spacetime. There are two types of immaterial things: concepts and minds. Concepts are abstract objects like a circle of the number seven. Minds are conscious entities that can exercise a free will.

As a first cause, an abstract concept seems unlikely because it is hard to imagine that a number or a law can create something. This leaves us with the mind. A mind is plausible, because it has a will, and a personal will is necessary for something to come into existence.

The Mind that caused the universe must also be extremely intelligent, very powerful and omnipresent to make sure the universe is fine tuned to exist as a stable, life permitting universe. This way we can see that standard cosmology points to God as the probable cause of the universe.
Origin
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
So what is the cause of the universe?

The cause concept fails at the beginning of time. The concept of cause implies, some event is preceded with another causual event. But how something can precede something else, when there is no causual time arrow?
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
No, the cause concept does not fail at the beginning of time. The best explanation is that God caused the universe to come into existence at t=0, concurrently. So the cause and the effect are simultaneous. This is quite plausible considering the fact that such causes exist even today, such as a ball hanging from a chain.
Origin
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
No, the cause concept does not fail at the beginning of time.
This doesn't refuse my logics at least a bit (it's not very surprising experience from discussions with creationists, btw). When you have no time, you have no precedence of events, some causality the less - end of story. It's not secret for me, the Big Bang theory (which has been introduced with catholic priest Lamaitre) is cryptocreacionist model - as Fred Hoyle already pointed to this fact before years, not to say about many materialistic philosophers.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
well the country with highest living standards (those in Scandinavia) are also the ones with most atheists and less believers
The living standard can be defined with GDP per capita, for example. In general it works so, but USA are an apparent exception.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
is uncaused, then that implies everything just magically came from nothing. But this runs contrary to rational human knowledge that from nothing, only nothing comes
This is just another antropocentric assumption, the Universe must originate from some determined state, the zero state in particular. Why just zero and not from five or 3.1415 state? Such way of thinking just brings more questions than answers. The only state, which doesn't require any further reasoning is the random state.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
No, the cause concept does not fail at the beginning of time.
You're begging the question about time, and you're too thick to grasp that simple fact. There is no time without spacetime. Your pondering is meaningless.
So the cause and the effect are simultaneous.
In all other inertial frames the effect will be before the cause or vice-verso. Your universe can only work if you abandon gravity. Besides, it is dubious that time is well defined in a singularity.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
Not just time, but spacetime itself (all dimensions and all energy) came into existence at the big bang. This can rightly be classified as a beginning. God caused that beginning instantaneously at t=0. There is no need for any time's arrow, because cause and effect are completely co-occuring.

Besides that other options are possible (but less plausible). One should not discount the existence of a timeless cause. An example of this would be a form of logical causation, such as exists between abstract objects like numbers. Lastly, God could have acted timeless or by a form of time that exists outside of our spacetime. Hawking's own no boundary model for instance relies on the existence of an imaginary time.
Deathclock
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
The best explanation is that God caused the universe to come into existence at t=0, concurrently.


SO FUCKING STUPID!

You propose to solve the problem of origin by positing a being of supreme complexity who himself has no origin? What the hell is wrong with you?

Bottom line, if your "god" can exist without origin then my universe can exist without origin and without "god".
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
It all boils down to this:

Okyesno and other retard religionists propose that we solve the problem of the ultimate origin by making up a being that had no origin... why can this being exist without origin you might ask? Because they say so...

They haven't solved ANYTHING, they've just invented a proxy, put the problem onto that proxy, and then asked you to ignore the fact that the SAME PROBLEM OF ORIGIN STILL EXISTS with that proxy.

It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
No Deafclock. Despite your drama, my argument is fully cogent, logically sound and yours fallacy. God is not complex. What makes you think He is complex? Dawkins is wrong in this assertion. The concept of God is very, very simple. His thoughts might be complex, but He is ontologically very simple: a bodiless Spirit.

Secondly, why would every explanation need an explanation to be valid? There is no logical reason why God cannot be an explanation unless He is explained. If every explanation can only be valid if it can be explained, then most scientific theories should be discarded. Gravity explains why the apple fell off the tree. But gravity itself is largely unexplained at the fundamental level. Does that invalidate gravity as an explanation for the apple's orbit? No!
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012
Okyesno and other retard religionists propose that we solve the problem of the ultimate origin by making up a being that had no origin...
It makes perfect sense to me. God is an atheist. Atheism is the supreme school of thought, endorsed by none other than god itself.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012
Nice wordings by the editor of this article "US and catholic countries".
Which implies that even though 99% of the USA gov. is catholic the USA does not constitute as a catholic country.
I think AIPAC speaks for itself.

God is not complex.

You are wrong. Amen-Ra which is the true name of your god is very complex as archaeologists describe.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012
But gravity itself is largely unexplained at the fundamental level.
In fact gravity may not exist at all fundamentally but actually be an effect of compression by phase waves and shielding from large asymmetric bodies of matter, or be a non-fundamental force as centrifugal force is. Nobody has yet observed gravitons.
Does that invalidate gravity as an explanation for the apple's orbit?
Yes, IF proper experimentation proved thus. But at least a naive person could uses simple experiments to postulate a theory of gravity with evidence, while there is no evidence for your invisible imaginary friend beyond your mental feebleness.
Anorion
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
and on the first day, man created god...
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
No Deafclock. Despite your drama, my argument is fully cogent, logically sound and yours fallacy. God is not complex. What makes you think He is complex? Dawkins is wrong in this assertion. The concept of God is very, very simple. His thoughts might be complex, but He is ontologically very simple: a bodiless Spirit.


You're wrong, you don't know what complexity means in terms of entropy, but that doesn't matter, my argument does not hinge on gods complexity.

You don't think it's valid to say that the "universe" has always existed, so instead you make up a proxy to explain the ultimate origin of the universe, but you think it's perfectly okay that this proxy you made up has always existed...

If your "god" can exist without origin why can't the universe exist without origin? You're just pushing the problem back one step, one completely unnecessary step, and solving/explaining nothing.

Your idea is worthless, it doesn't get us anywhere, it doesn't explain anything at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
The concept of God is very, very simple. His thoughts might be complex, but He is ontologically very simple: a bodiless Spirit.
He is only as complex as he can be for your brain to understand him. But reality is far more complex than that, which is very easy to understand, and is very easy to demonstrate.

You should stop using philo words. They dont mean anything and they only make you appear pretentious. You dont want people to think you are pretentious do you?
Does that invalidate gravity as an explanation for the apple's orbit? No!
Do you know how DIFFICULT it was to get religionists to accept the reality of gravity? Why should science ever have to go through that again?
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Deathclock,

Notice how you are not attacking any of my premises but just lament the conclusion. But that is not rational, but emotional.

The standard model of cosmology clearly explains that the universe had a beginning, and so does the second law. Science is on my side, not yours.

God exists without origin because whatever caused time to begin must be timeless itself. God did not begin to exist therefore He does not need a cause Himself. I do not presuppose God's existence as you suggest but His existence flows logically from the premises.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
explains that the universe had a beginning, and so does the second law

Beginning - yes. First cause - no (or at least not necessarily). Don't confuse the one with the other. Notions of causality don't really mesh very well with the conditions at t cose to zero.

God exists without origin because whatever caused time to begin must be timeless itself.

Again the fault is glaringly obvious here: causality requires time.

So you are caught in your own trap:
1) Either you acknowledge that timelessness does not require causality (i.e. that at the inception of the universe - when time wasn't around - no causal agent is needed)

2) Or, if you argue that this DOES require a causal agent then even a 'timeless entity' like your god requires a cause.

You seem really confused abou the nature of time and what causality means, though. Added to that that there is really no source that would support the notion that god is timeless (or that he exist at all.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

The Bible supports God as being timeless before the beginning of the universe (2 Tim 1:9).

It is you who is the confused one. The BEGINNING of time requires a cause, not timelessness. Since God does not have a beginning, He does not need His own cause.

The moment God creates the universe, time begins and time-dependent causality begins to exist, all co-occuring at the same time = 0. I agree it is mind boggling, but much more rational than any alternative, such as the universe mysteriously popping into existence uncaused from nothing or magically causing itself.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
The Bible supports God as being timeless before the beginning of the universe (2 Tim 1:9).


"I support unicorns as living on the moon."

There. It is written. Is it therefore true? No? If not then why do you take the Bible as truth? Do you have a way of checking on the stuff that is in there? No? See the problem?

Guess what: Quoting the Bible in a scientific forum carries no crdibility whatsoever (or more precisely negative credibility - since it constitutes one of the most basic philosophical flaws: argument from authority)

such as the universe mysteriously popping into existence uncaused from nothing or magically causing itself.

So proposing a magician AND magic is more rational than proposing magic? Sounds like a rational argument...oh wait: No it doesn't.

I have no idea why the universe exists ('why' is probably a wrong question since it presupposes causality). But simply making some creature up that caused it doesn't cut it. Not scientifically. Not ni the least.
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Notice how you are not attacking any of my premises but just lament the conclusion.


Nope, that's not at all descriptive of our discussion so far... you're either delusional or lying. I was speaking directly to your premise that the universe cannot exist eternally but "god" (a make believe proxy) can, which is completely retarded.

The standard model of cosmology clearly explains that the universe had a beginning


No, it does not. Big bang theory says NOTHING about what existed before the big bang. You don't know what you are talking about.

God exists without origin because whatever caused time to begin must be timeless itself.


Time is not a physical thing... If your "god" (which is ill-defined make believe nonsense) can exist without origin to cause the universe then there is NO REASON that the universe cannot simply exist without origin.

You say: "x cannot possibly exist without an origin, so it was created by y, which had no origin."

RETARDED.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

You miss the point. You have asked for a reason why I consider God timeless. That is why I gave you the Bible verse. Not to convince you of it's truth.

I used the word magic as a metaphor for the nothingness hypothesis. Sorry you failed to see that. God is a perfectly cogent explanation for the beginning of the universe based on His ontology and Being. If God exists, He has all the attributes to be a good first cause, contrary to nothingness. In science it is perfectly ok to suggest certain unproven entities to explain something, such as dark energy, hidden dimensions or inflation fields, if they are logically consistent.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
You have asked for a reason why I consider God timeless. That is why I gave you the Bible verse.

And I'm telling you: Citing a book as your only reason to believe something makes you out as a gullible fool. Don't be surprised to be treated like one.

God is a perfectly cogent explanation for the beginning of the universe based on His ontology and Being

Which, again, you only got from a book. That doesn't make it cogent nor does your misplaced use of the word ontological make any sense here.
There are plenty of books about stuff. Not all the stuff in books exists. To be cogent a thing must be reasonable (i.e. able to be REASONED for). Again: Citing books or posing ideas that cannot be verified/tested has nothing to do with being 'cogent' and everything to do with being gullible.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012
In science it is perfectly ok to suggest certain unproven entities to explain something, such as dark energy, hidden dimensions or inflation fields, if they are logically consistent.

Yes, it is because these things are being proposed not as fact but as THEORIES. You know: the things scientists eventually test for?
before you can devise a test you have to know what you are looking for. So you posit something, make the test, and then reject/refine the theory or keep on testing from other angles.

The crucial duifference here is: You propose god and then say: He exists and that's that - no argument possible.
But scientists say: Let's propose dark matter (or the Higgs boson or strings or ...) because it fits with obsrvation. Then we deduce what ELSE these things would affect and see if that also holds. If it does then we can continue testing. If it doesn't then we'll dump the concept and try to figure it out another way.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Deathclock -

You have the unfortunate habit of becoming abusive when you fail to win an argument. Such an attitude could get you in trouble later in life.

You also misrepresent my argument. I simply said that the big bang points to a beginning, and this is a scientific fact. A beginning is not a "before", it is a "beginning". You may not like it, but the eternal universe simply falls out of mainstream science, and has been disproven over and over again. For now I will stop responding to your posts, seeing they bring nothing valuable to the discussion.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

Your last post completely misses the point. I never said that I have proven God's existence in some final scientific way. I am saying that God is a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe. Scientists do exactly the same when they suggest a hypothetical inflation field as a plausible explanation for the horizon problem.

Of course we need additional proof from other area's, and here I fully agree. The cosmological argument in itself it not some final proof for God's existence. But the argument is cogent, logically sound and matches the observation: the fact that the universe has a beginning.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
The Bible supports God as being timeless before the beginning of the universe (2 Tim 1:9).
Unfortunately as 2 Timothy was not written by Paul as it is made out to be, and thus is a work of deception, we cannot trust anything we find in it can we?

More likely it was a later contrivance added to fill in certain gaps and make certain clarifications and adjustments, similar to the phony ending someone added to mark. Perhaps 2 tim was intended to clarify that your god is indeed timeless, yes?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
I am saying that God is a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe.

He's exactly as plausible (or even less so) than unicorn poop is an explanation for starshine.

Sure you can make up a WILDLY improbable and fantastic cause for something (something that doesn't need a cause, BTW) - but that doesn't make it plausible. It just makes you sound completely bonkers.

Scientists do exactly the same when they suggest a hypothetical inflation field as a plausible explanation for the horizon problem.

But they are trying to find a test for it (by looking back, seeing if the field fits with other observations - while your invisible friend specifically says "do not test me". That's a cop out if I ever heard one.

For now I will stop responding to your posts

Hurrah. Go back to trolling some other forum.
okyesno
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

Trolling? Lol! We just has a discussion in which you replied to many of my posts. That makes you at least my co-troller. Now that the conclusion is not to your liking, you start all over again with your verbal diarrhea. Very immature and not very rational. But I forgive you my fiend. Be blessed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

Trolling? Lol! We just has a discussion in which you replied to many of my posts. That makes you at least my co-troller. Now that the conclusion is not to your liking, you start all over again with your verbal diarrhea. Very immature and not very rational. But I forgive you my fiend. Be blessed.
"20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.

Grace be with you." 1tim6
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Now that the conclusion is not to your liking, you start all over again with your verbal diarrhea. Very immature and not very rational. But I forgive you my fiend. Be blessed.

Man, you must be the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
What conclusion? You haven't brought forth a single rational argument (much less a conclusion).

You forgive me? For what? For giving you a chance to make a complete fool of yourself? You're welcome.

You 'foregiveness' means nothing to me (as you mean nothing to me). 'Forgiving' is only a way so that you can feel good about your own delusions meaning something to anyone.

Actually: That explains why you believe in an invisible friend. No one takes you seriously - so you have to invent someone who does.

More news stories

Clippers and coiners in 16th-century England

In 2017 a new £1 coin will appear in our pockets with a design extremely difficult to forge. In the mid-16th century, Elizabeth I's government came up with a series of measures to deter "divers evil persons" ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...