Cyprus-Forum.com

[Atheist]

One thing is for certain. This supreme creator can never be the arsehole...

If such thing existed it could be anything and have any purpose. The idea that a "God" would exist to serve some humans is yet another baseless assumption based on wishful thinking. In fact if a creator existed it is more likely to be an "asshole" (from our perspective) since "he" would have created the universe to serve some of "his" needs and we are merely being used, like bacteria in a petri dish.

Lets take the example that T_C gave earlier:

If humanity were to create some form of artificial life in a computer...

Who is the "God" of that "artificial life in a computer"? More likely the creators of this "software" are more than one. And those that are using the "software" don't even have to be the same as the creators. In fact many different copies of that "artificial life" universe could simultaneously be run on many different computers by different users.

And what would be the purpose of this software? If you create something it is more likely that you create it to serve your needs or the needs of those who use your creation. You don't create an object in order to serve the needs of the created object. So if we were purposely created, then our more likely purpose would be to fulfill some needs of the creators and we are nothing but disposable objects who are being used.

And even if humans were to run some "artificial life in a computer" this wouldn't mean that Humans are immortal and all powerful. A human would have the power to "turn off" a universe running in his computer or affect it in various ways, but he still wouldn't have the power to make himself immortal.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the theists make a lot of baseless assumptions. The "Intelligent Design" is just one baseless assumption. Then they make a lot of other baseless assumptions, like that the creator has to be a single entity, that the creator is also an active "operator" ( a creation can exist apart from its creator), that the creator still exist (a creation can outlive its creators), that this creator cares about each and every one of them on an individual level and that this creator has as a purpose to reward them and serve their needs.

So it is a chain of baseless assumptions because the "Intelligent Design" theory on its own is not enough to serve the psychological needs of the theists.

[GreekIslandGirl]

... You don't create an object in order to serve the needs of the created object...

Excuse me, but mothers do this all the time.

[Atheist]

... You don't create an object in order to serve the needs of the created object...

Excuse me, but mothers do this all the time.

That is an instinct that serves the species.

One of the views I am challenging is the view that if there is a "creator" that this creator must necessarily be like a father (or mother) to us, like most theists imagine this "creator" to be.

In order for theists to have their dreams fulfilled there needs to be a creator (no proof), the creator must still exist (no proof), the creator must be in control of the creation (no proof), the creator must care deeply about some insignificant elements of the creation (no proof), and the creator must be able and willing to serve humans in the way that some humans dream about (no proof) . Those are a lot of baseless assumptions that a theist needs to make and there is nothing to support any of them apart from wishful thinking and fairy tales.

[Get Real!]

One of the views I am challenging is the view that if there is a "creator" that this creator must necessarily be like a father (or mother) to us, like most theists imagine this "creator" to be.

In order for theists to have their dreams fulfilled there needs to be a creator (no proof), the creator must still exist (no proof), the creator must be in control of the creation (no proof), the creator must care deeply about some insignificant elements of the creation (no proof), and the creator must be able and willing to serve humans in the way that some humans dream about (no proof) . Those are a lot of baseless assumptions that a theist needs to make and there is nothing to support any of them apart from wishful thinking and fairy tales.

Denying the existence of a creator is denying the existence of the universe itself because you can’t have the latter without the former! <-- Now tap into your common sense if you can find it, to understand this fundamental FACT.

Therefore, your so called “challenge” is nothing but hollow baloney from a spoiled child! That's how you come across to me.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that (1) the universe doesn't exist, and if it does exist then you haven't provided a shred of evidence that (2) the universe was "self-manufactured" out of thin air!

To sum it up your posts don't present this forum with *any* challenges other than expressing your obvious hatred of theists.

That you’re a hater is a given, that you can debate this subject is not even debatable… it’s a FAIL.

[Lordo]

you what no god no universe, thats easy to prove. we have universe and no god so clearly god did not create it. logical ennen

fact 1 universe does exist
fact 2 it is fuk all to do with god
fact 3 at this point it the actual mechanism of how it started has not been proved experimentally but i have no doubt we shall do it sooner or later or even later than that.
fact 4 no bugger off to church and ask your god for forgiveness for giving headaches by bullshitting so much

[Get Real!]

fact 3 at this point it the actual mechanism of how it started has not been proved experimentally but i have no doubt we shall do it sooner or later or even later than that.

King of IDIOTS, if and when you find that "mechanism" you'll then have to give it a LABEL (a name) right?

Well, feel free to use the three letter word...

I rest my case!

[Atheist]

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that (1) the universe doesn't exist, and if it does exist then you haven't provided a shred of evidence that (2) the universe was "self-manufactured" out of thin air!

I never made any of those claims. My claim is that the universe exists and that nobody knows the exact details of how the universe came to be.

You are the one who claims to have this knowledge and therefore it is you who should provide evidence to prove that what you claim you know is true.

So provide evidence that:

a) The universe was created by a "creator"
b) That this "creator" still exists
c) That this "creator" did not just create the universe but he is in control of it as well
d) That this "creator" gives a fuck about some specific insignificant organisms in a tiny part of the creation
e) That this "creator" is able and willing to serve your needs and provide you with paradise and whatever else you expect from him

You keep insisting on (a) without being able to provide any facts other than the "Intelligent design" theory (which is a bad theory because it would entail that "God" would need to be intelligently designed by somebody else) while you provide no argument whatsoever for all the other assumptions that you are making regarding this "creator".

It is clear that your beliefs are not based on any evidence or reason, but merely on wishful thinking and nothing else whatsoever.

[Get Real!]

My claim is that the universe exists and that nobody knows the exact details of how the universe came to be.

That's OK sweetheart, we don't necessarily need to know "exactly" what it is as long as we acknowledge that "something" is responsible for the universe in which case all we then need is a LABEL.

We use this technique in Maths all the time... we call them "unknowns" and one of the most famous unknowns is the square root of -1.

Some mathematicians call this the "J-factor" and others the "imaginary number", but we NEED to use the square root of -1 to solve quadratic equations, so a SYMBOL has been invented to represent it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit

By the same token, everyone knows that "something" is responsible for the universe and even though we don't understand or can solve it, we invented a symbol or LABEL for it.

We call it...

GOD

[Atheist]

fact 3 at this point it the actual mechanism of how it started has not been proved experimentally but i have no doubt we shall do it sooner or later or even later than that.

King of IDIOTS, if and when you find that "mechanism" you'll then have to give it a LABEL (a name) right?

Well, feel free to use the three letter word...

I rest my case!

The "mechanism of how it started" doesn't have to involve a decision taken by something with a mind, neither that initial "mechanism" needs to be in control of everything that happened ever since (let alone to care about the lives of some insignificant organisms in some little corner of the universe)

[Get Real!]

fact 3 at this point it the actual mechanism of how it started has not been proved experimentally but i have no doubt we shall do it sooner or later or even later than that.

King of IDIOTS, if and when you find that "mechanism" you'll then have to give it a LABEL (a name) right?

Well, feel free to use the three letter word...

I rest my case!

The "mechanism of how it started" doesn't have to involve a decision taken by something with a mind, neither that initial "mechanism" needs to be in control of everything that happened ever since (let alone to care about the lives of some insignificant organisms in some little corner of the universe)

I have already explained the difference between pantheism (the "scientific" God) and theism (the personal God) so I'm not gonna go over that again.