[moneyline]

It is the equivalent of a pot, after being crafted by the potter, saying, "Why did you make me this way? Why didn't you make me a different shape? And if you really wanted me to believe you made me, you should have done everything differently."

The truly funny thing is that all of you pots have faith. Just not in God.

Not one of you can answer the incredibly simple question (without using a 2nd question as your answer), where did the universe originate from. Not one of you can account for something being created from nothing. Not science. Not any of you. But yet you have FAITH that it somehow happened.

Wow ... y'all do have faith ... who would have thunk it?

[slacker00]

WTF is with the talking pot analogy? Are you on acid?

Secondly, you speak in broad generalities, as if everyone on this message board thinks exactly the same way, that is, differently than you do. Your mode of thinking is quite narrow.

Not one of you can answer the incredibly simple question (without using a 2nd question as your answer), where did the universe originate from.

Then answer your own question. I'll already tell you that you're wrong. The question is flawed. It's basically a trick question used to pacify dimwits.

[moneyline]

"Then answer your own question."

Great answer, man. Very impressive.

Where did the universe originate from? Where did the first 'something' come from?

Just because you have no idea and no answer doesn't make it a trick question. It just makes you a flawed human, like all others, who puts his faith in something other than God.

Answer the question, Francis. Or refuse to. You put your faith in something ... what is it, again?

[slacker00]

You refused to answer the question. I assume you're talking to yourself. You appear to be a ranting madman.

The question makes no sense. It's like asking some stranger on the street, "Where did you hide the murder weapon after you killed O.J. Simpson's wife?". It's a lunatic question.

[moneyline]

Slack, I asked the question -- guess you missed that ...

Asking how the universe was first created is a lunatic question? Gotcha.

Thanks for trying, though. Your efforts to be a rational person are officially noted!

[Dark Horse]

Since you seem to know, how was it first created?
And throw in a ball park figure as to how long it took.

[Willie Bee]

Why is it amazing that we all don't share the same beliefs? Reminds me of the Frank Burns line from an old MASH show: "Individuality is fine, as long as everyone does it together."

I'll tell you what is amazing: This man I knew as a kid was as agnostic as they come. He was a geologist and knew more about the South Texas oilfields than anyone I knew at the time. The guy told me all about how old this planet was and relied heavily on what he knew and had learned from science. The man was also a bit of a bigot, absolutely against the idea of an Irish Catholic becoming our president back in 1960.

Suddenly, about 18 years ago the man found religion, specifically the Catholic religion. Even went to Rome and along with a hundred or so other couples had an audience with the Pope who absolved them all of their previous marriages so their current/future marital unions could be regonized by God and the Catholic church. He doesn't miss a mass these days, literally plans his life around church.

Now don't get me wrong; this sudden shift in his beliefs has not affected my love for him one bit. But it was and remains an amazing change of direction for my father.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by moneyline

Slack, I asked the question -- guess you missed that ...

Asking how the universe was first created is a lunatic question? Gotcha.

Thanks for trying, though. Your efforts to be a rational person are officially noted!

Your question implies a creator. How can I say there was no creator when the question says there is?

[reno cool]

If we take a look at how religion has been used for power, to keep people in line, and justify deeds, than we might learn how God was created. How the universe was created is totally irrelevant matter here.

[moneyline]

Slacker, your name truly reflects your debating style. You could have answered the ? by saying you believe the universe has always been.

You'd be wrong. But at least it would have been an answer. But you weren't even capable of that. Oh, well!

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by moneyline

Slacker, your name truly reflects your debating style. You could have answered the ? by saying you believe the universe has always been.

You'd be wrong. But at least it would have been an answer. But you weren't even capable of that. Oh, well!

Why would I be wrong? It can't be proven either way.

If I wasn't capable of producing an answer, then how did I produce the answer you suggest?

As long as we are name calling. Your debating style is about the same as a monkey with a typewriter. I can only assume your alias is supposed to be "monkeyline", except you made a typo when you signed up here.

[moneyline]

It will be proven, one way or the other, upon death. Therefore, you are either right or wrong. Sorry if you can't grasp that.

And the answer you "produced" was name calling and then refusing to answer. You "produced" this by -- well, how DID you produce that?

No typo in your name, though. It shines through. You are a slacker.

[Bluehorseshoe]

Who created God then?

[moneyline]

As I asked at the beginning of this thread, try to answer the question without simply asking another question. I know it is hard. Try anyway.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by moneyline

It will be proven, one way or the other, upon death. Therefore, you are either right or wrong. Sorry if you can't grasp that.

And the answer you "produced" was name calling and then refusing to answer. You "produced" this by -- well, how DID you produce that?

No typo in your name, though. It shines through. You are a slacker.

Death will prove nothing about anything. People die every day. It doesn't prove anything. There is no "awakening". There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Once again, you are using circular logic.

As I asked at the beginning of this thread, try to answer the question without simply asking another question. I know it is hard. Try anyway.

Sorry, I already answered it. Sorry if you can't comprehend. Sorry if it's not the answer you designed the question around. You are just here to argue and act like a fool.

[moneyline]

Slacker, what was your answer? Truly. You said it was a trick question. That was your answer?

Uh-huh.

I'll have to remember that the next time someone asks me a question I don't want to answer. Good on ya, Slacker.

(oh, and imagine wanting to start a debate on an internet message board ... what on earth was I ever thinking)

[Willie Bee]

Originally Posted by moneyline

As I asked at the beginning of this thread, try to answer the question without simply asking another question. I know it is hard. Try anyway.

You know moneyline, I'm all for being as tolerant and respectful as I can be towards anyone's religion. I feel fortunate enough to have been exposed to a lot of different cultures and I've tried to learn from all of them. And I'm very comfortable with my own relationship with God.

That being said, it's condescending attitudes by Christians such as yourself that turn people off in a heartbeat. Bluehorseshoe asked you a legitimate question, so try to be a sport and answer it instead of the arrogant know-it-all hypocrite that you are.

[moneyline]

Actually, Willie, for once I wanted to start a thread where non-believers would answer a question instead of just bombarding the thread with questions of their own.

Too much to ask that they answer one question?

Oops, I guess that is condescending.

(actually, it is not -- now why doesn't someone here try to answer the original question -- I've only answered about 500 of them in other threads ... asking y'all to answer ONE is condescending? R-ight ...)

Now, answer the question Willie and stop being an arrogant prick cloaked in modest sheep's clothing ...

[Willie Bee]

So that's your limit, huh, 500? You can't answer a 501st question? Or is it just that you're stumped and your only way out from under such an inquiry is to resort to looking down upon the rest of humanity for being less a person than you simply because they don't share your beliefs? You're constant criticism of everyone else's life or lifestyles has worn thin here.

But don't worry; I'll pray for you. God bless you, moneyline.

[moneyline]

And still, Willie Bee is unable to even attempt to answer the first question posed in this thread.

Why am I not surprised?

(by the way, since all I do is criticize, it is "your", not "You're" ... "You're" welcome for the English lesson ...)

[Dark Horse]

Willie, it's a 'guided' discussion. So let's play along.

The honest answer 'I don't have the first clue'; since I wasn't there or don't remember' in moneyline's mind is supplanted by 'it must have been God!'

He belongs to one of history's stranger sects that attributes the magnificence of the Cosmos to the same Being that forces humans to either accept Him or forever burn in hell. Who could resist such a loving Supreme Master? The worst human father wouldn't burn his own children, but the idea does give a whole new significance to what they mean be being 'saved'.

The problem, moneyline, is not with recognizing a Higher Intelligence. It is with your God, medieval and outdated.

[moneyline]

So Dark Horse's answer, if you sift through his verbose ramblings, is "I don't know."

He just has faith that either the universe was created out of nothing or he has faith that it has been there all along.

I have faith that God has been there all along and created the universe.

We both have faith. Just different kinds. Much different.

(oh, if Dark Horse were to ever share his belief in God -- which, of course, he never will, as cowards never like to commit to anything during a debate -- it'd be curious to see how Dark Horse created him ... in his own likeness and with his own weaknesses, perhaps?)

[Dark Horse]

I don't have to create something, like you, to explain what I can't. I'm ok with not knowing. The more I understand, the less I know.

If I absolutely needed to know how the universe was created, I'd dedicate the rest of my life to studying it. Sadly, for you, to whom this question appears to be of supreme importance, not only do I not know, but I don't really care either. More practical questions occupy my mind, but none important enough to dangle out here for all to answer, with a superior smirk of omniscience.

You assume you know. Based on what? Filling out 'god' on the dotted line can be as much a sign of faith as of ignorance. Why is it so hard for you to resist your attempts at convincing others of your supreme view? It's not even your own view, but a graft that you accepted as your own. I honestly don't give a f*ck about a fear-mongering religious sect with eternal hellfire as its sole alternative.

Anyway, now that I've answered your question, why don't you enlighten me on how the universe was created, and how long it took.

Anyone willing to add odds to these props on moneyline's answer?
- about a week
- billions of years

[moneyline]

God created the universe. I believe He did it within 7 days.

You don't know how/if the universe was created. You don't know who, if anybody, did it.

(ps -- doesn't really matter what you believe or what you choose -- just like I tell my clients awaiting trial, the judge/jury will make the final decision and you will have to abide by it ... much like what will happen to you upon death)

[Pareto]

Here is what you non-believers will face upon death. I hope this video will change your mind, and start worshipping God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

[juuso]

Originally Posted by Pareto

Here is what you non-believers will face upon death. I hope this video will change your mind, and start worshipping God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

.

HAHA. Edward Current rocks

[reno cool]

thats a great cartoon. I think thats the only way it could go down.

[TLD]

So if I understand the argument, it goes something like this:

1. There are matters about which it is not possible to have some sort of absolute proof, perhaps even questions for which it may not be humanly possible to imagine the answer.

2. If one believes a fundamentalist Christian answer to such a question, then one is using faith. If one believes some other religious answer to such a question, then one is using faith. If one believes some scientific or non-religious answer to such a question, then one is using faith. If one admits one does not know the answer to such a question, then one is using faith. If one refuses to address the question, or dodges it by bringing up another question, then one is using faith.

3. Because all the non-Christian responses use faith just as the fundamentalist Christian one does, they are just as bad and can have no standing to criticize what the fundamentalist Christian believes.

4. Therefore the fundamentalist Christian position is justified.

Is that about it?

(I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot the fallacy/fallacies.)

[Robyn]

Moneyline likes to fight. Smart guy, but the condescending tone overshadows his knowledge of theology.

[Willie Bee]

Don't worry, Robyn. I'm building this giant handbasket for all of us bad people to go to hell in. I got the dimensions using the ark size calculator here. Working on the sun deck this afternoon. Which chaises do you like best?

I was thinking the one on the right since I'm going to Cabella's anyway this weekend to pick up a new bait bucket and some lures. But the double-seater with the umbrella is nice, too. Maybe some of each?

[Robyn]

Willie, I like the way you think. If we ever come to Texas, Bread and I are taking you out for seven beers.

[zentiense]

Sure, okay, I'll challenge the belief in God. Why would one trust a bunch of men writing the Bible hundreds of years after the fact? If you've ever played a game of telephone you know that people are fallible creatures and get stuff wrong. Especially when it comes to oral transmission or event recall. Paul didn't even know Jesus (according to the Bible as we have it -- and apart from his "divine encounter") but Paul is perhaps the single most important figure in the development of the early Christian church. In the accounts we have presently, people chose Paul's ideas over Peter's, who, if I remember correctly, actually was probably there (if anyone was actually there in the first place). It's kind of funny how we pick and choose and decide to trust one nutjob over another... how about the redaction of a canon in the first place? You have dozens of potential texts to throw into "The Bible" and you choose contradictory books (the Gospels all have different accounts by people who were likely not there, either -- we all know the Gospels were not actually written by the disciples they are attributed to), letters not even written by Paul (and are, rather, attributed to Paul), and choose to deliberately exclude (and DESTROY) material attributed to persons who may have actually been there -- Peter, Mary, Judas, etc. Call it divine inspiration/interpretation if you will, but I call it deliberate manipulation by man to manufacture religion. The textual archaeology just does not add-up very well in the case of the Bible. I have no reason to trust (or believe in) such a construction.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Originally Posted by moneyline

Not one of you can answer the incredibly simple question (without using a 2nd question as your answer), where did the universe originate from.

How about the only logical answer: I don't know, and neither do you. Our science is unable to probe anything that existed before the universe, for the simple reason that time only began when the universe did. Thus, at present, a boring and pointless question.

Now, the interesting question: why believe in an omnipotent sky-fairy that refuses to show any sign it exists? Especially when so much in its sacred books has been shown to be total nonsense (6000 year old world, yet with millions of years old dinosaur bones and even older light coming in from the heavens).

Let go of your bizarre pre-medieval Mid-Eastern cult. Embrace logic, and rationalism instead. You'll be much better off for it.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by moneyline

God created the universe. I believe He did it within 7 days.

Certain religious groups are easily identified by extreme and unproven beliefs, combined with the conviction that anyone not belonging to the group is thereby doomed. That is not religion, my friend. That's a sect.

As someone in the law profession, you must see that the hearsay element in your belief system is astounding. Have you ever considered that 'Christians', with the passing of the centuries, have made a horrible mess out of the teachings of Christ?

[moneyline]

People, in general, make a horrible mess out of anything they touch. And the hearsay element is present in both science and religion when dealing with the past. Hearsay is a statement made out of court (what are we considering the court in this example) being offered for the truth of the matter asserted ...

Some examples of hearsay ...

- the Bible
- any history book
- scientific journals
- any written works from any person who is currently deceased ...

i've been interested in the 'how did the universe begin' answers. 'I don't know' (but have faith it must have started in some way, or have faith it must have always been here) shows that even atheists have faith.

Once again, that's great. It is wonderful to have faith, while understand how infintesimal we are as human beings and how we know thismuch about the world around us ...