Athiest are the ultimate free thinker?

[ATMD]

Rather it considers there to be a transition from such things being "undefined" to their being "defined as energy, mass, etc."

"Undefined" is not "no energy, no mass." It is different than say the quantity 0. "Time" does not exist either, so there is no "before" and no "after."

Science does not have questions to ask of "undefined." As an example, take the case where the universe has shrunk to a single point, a singularity, and ask, "How big is that point?"

That is nonsense, of course.

So there was not nothing after all. There was something called undefined.

Is this something eternal? Is it always in existence, has no point of origin?

[stevenirons21]

Big bang theory is just an invention, you should read it's origins.

[ATMD]

Big bang theory is just an invention, you should read it's origins.

I did.

All theories are inventions. What matters is whether the theory is an accurate reflection of reality. I am trying to understand how the BB theory is superior to the intelligent design theory.

[Spendulus]

Big bang theory is just an invention, you should read it's origins.

I did.

All theories are inventions. What matters is whether the theory is an accurate reflection of reality. I am trying to understand how the BB theory is superior to the intelligent design theory.

Who knows? Let me know when we find signatures in DNA coded thusly, "Product of IDTheory Corp., Alpha Centauri."

[BADecker]

Big bang theory is just an invention, you should read it's origins.

I did.

All theories are inventions. What matters is whether the theory is an accurate reflection of reality. I am trying to understand how the BB theory is superior to the intelligent design theory.

Who knows? Let me know when we find signatures in DNA coded thusly, "Product of IDTheory Corp., Alpha Centauri."

People make inventions, not corporations.     

[KingScorpio]

atheism is like ultimate scanning of the world.

theism has advantages as you can more creatively interact with the world.

you can observe that on the jews, living in the united states and their high incomes.

if there is also humanis atheism, you get even huge trouble working with people, because of crazy perfectionism

regards

[Spendulus]

....
So there was not nothing after all. There was something called undefined.

Is this something eternal? Is it always in existence, has no point of origin?

At this time, dimensions are defined. Time is defined. Therefore, we exist and can discuss these things. Science cannot and will not address the situation prior.

I don't care if religious people want to speculate about it, but the scientific view would be that no discussion was possible about a universe totally undefined, without time or dimensions.

It's possible to be in conflict with science. For example, suppose a person claimed that green rabbits ruled the Universe before the beginning of time. The scientist would reply, no, that's contrary to Undefined. That's impossible. The green rabbits could only exist after the beginning of time and space.

Keep in mind that historical concepts of infinite, finite, forever, eternal and so forth, should not be expected to be as precise as modern words. That's okay, really. They did a pretty darn good job with what they had.

[BADecker]

....
So there was not nothing after all. There was something called undefined.

Is this something eternal? Is it always in existence, has no point of origin?

At this time, dimensions are defined. Time is defined. Therefore, we exist and can discuss these things. Science cannot and will not address the situation prior.

I don't care if religious people want to speculate about it, but the scientific view would be that no discussion was possible about a universe totally undefined, without time or dimensions.

It's possible to be in conflict with science. For example, suppose a person claimed that green rabbits ruled the Universe before the beginning of time. The scientist would reply, no, that's contrary to Undefined. That's impossible. The green rabbits could only exist after the beginning of time and space.

Keep in mind that historical concepts of infinite, finite, forever, eternal and so forth, should not be expected to be as precise as modern words. That's okay, really. They did a pretty darn good job with what they had.

String Theory Explained – What is The True Nature of Reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da-2h2B4faU

 

[ATMD]

....
So there was not nothing after all. There was something called undefined.

Is this something eternal? Is it always in existence, has no point of origin?

At this time, dimensions are defined. Time is defined. Therefore, we exist and can discuss these things. Science cannot and will not address the situation prior.

I don't care if religious people want to speculate about it, but the scientific view would be that no discussion was possible about a universe totally undefined, without time or dimensions.

It's possible to be in conflict with science. For example, suppose a person claimed that green rabbits ruled the Universe before the beginning of time. The scientist would reply, no, that's contrary to Undefined. That's impossible. The green rabbits could only exist after the beginning of time and space.

Keep in mind that historical concepts of infinite, finite, forever, eternal and so forth, should not be expected to be as precise as modern words. That's okay, really. They did a pretty darn good job with what they had.

I agree, science cannot and will not address the situation prior because whatever existed prior to the universe must have existed outside of space and time.

Theists believe that God exists beyond space and time, while atheists believe something undefined exists beyond space and time.

[Spendulus]

....
So there was not nothing after all. There was something called undefined.

Is this something eternal? Is it always in existence, has no point of origin?

At this time, dimensions are defined. Time is defined. Therefore, we exist and can discuss these things. Science cannot and will not address the situation prior.

I don't care if religious people want to speculate about it, but the scientific view would be that no discussion was possible about a universe totally undefined, without time or dimensions.

It's possible to be in conflict with science. For example, suppose a person claimed that green rabbits ruled the Universe before the beginning of time. The scientist would reply, no, that's contrary to Undefined. That's impossible. The green rabbits could only exist after the beginning of time and space.

Keep in mind that historical concepts of infinite, finite, forever, eternal and so forth, should not be expected to be as precise as modern words. That's okay, really. They did a pretty darn good job with what they had.

I agree, science cannot and will not address the situation prior because whatever existed prior to the universe must have existed outside of space and time.

Theists believe that God exists beyond space and time, while atheists believe something undefined exists beyond space and time.

No to the green rabbits / God outside or beyond space and time.

However you might note, it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

[RyanPruitt54]

....
So there was not nothing after all. There was something called undefined.

Is this something eternal? Is it always in existence, has no point of origin?

At this time, dimensions are defined. Time is defined. Therefore, we exist and can discuss these things. Science cannot and will not address the situation prior.

I don't care if religious people want to speculate about it, but the scientific view would be that no discussion was possible about a universe totally undefined, without time or dimensions.

It's possible to be in conflict with science. For example, suppose a person claimed that green rabbits ruled the Universe before the beginning of time. The scientist would reply, no, that's contrary to Undefined. That's impossible. The green rabbits could only exist after the beginning of time and space.

Keep in mind that historical concepts of infinite, finite, forever, eternal and so forth, should not be expected to be as precise as modern words. That's okay, really. They did a pretty darn good job with what they had.

I agree, science cannot and will not address the situation prior because whatever existed prior to the universe must have existed outside of space and time.

Theists believe that God exists beyond space and time, while atheists believe something undefined exists beyond space and time.

No to the green rabbits / God outside or beyond space and time.

However you might note, it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

It would be good also noticing you yourself say yes to the green rabbits based on the way you've explained we came to existence.

[ATMD]

No to the green rabbits / God outside or beyond space and time.

However you might note, it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

To me, it makes all of the difference in the world.

Theists believe that something with infinite intelligence, which exists beyond space and time, created this universe.

Atheists believe that something with zero intelligence, which exists beyond space and time, created this universe.

Both theists and atheists recognize the fact that the universe did not simply come out from absolutely nothing, that is just logically impossible.

[Spendulus]

No to the green rabbits / God outside or beyond space and time.

However you might note, it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

To me, it makes all of the difference in the world.

Theists believe that something with infinite intelligence, which exists before space and time, created this universe.

Atheists believe that something with zero intelligence, which exists before space and time, created this universe.

Both theists and atheists recognize the fact that the universe did not simply come out from absolutely nothing, that is just logically impossible.

Actually, there are certainly variations in the opinions of theists, and you seem to have made up "what atheists believe" and "what both believe."

My issue with your opinions is that they are nonsensical. I am not saying that in a perforative sense but strictly logical. Look at this phrase.

"before space and time."

How can there be a "before" if no dimension of time?

I probably understand what you are trying to say, but as written it makes no sense.

You'd like to think there was something bigger, vaster then the universe, in which a Supreme Being resides. Sort of a Giant House in which he has a jar of marbles of which this universe is one marble?

Thousands of years ago there was only the place called Earth, and the place called Heavens. That was the Universe as we understood it. It's considerably bigger today. It will quite likely be considerably bigger tomorrow than today.

[ATMD]

No to the green rabbits / God outside or beyond space and time.

However you might note, it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

To me, it makes all of the difference in the world.

Theists believe that something with infinite intelligence, which exists beyond space and time, created this universe.

Atheists believe that something with zero intelligence, which exists beyond space and time, created this universe.

Both theists and atheists recognize the fact that the universe did not simply come out from absolutely nothing, that is just logically impossible.

Actually, there are certainly variations in the opinions of theists, and you seem to have made up "what atheists believe" and "what both believe."

My issue with your opinions is that they are nonsensical. I am not saying that in a perforative sense but strictly logical. Look at this phrase.

"before space and time."

How can there be a "before" if no dimension of time?

I probably understand what you are trying to say, but as written it makes no sense.

You'd like to think there was something bigger, vaster then the universe, in which a Supreme Being resides. Sort of a Giant House in which he has a jar of marbles of which this universe is one marble?

Thousands of years ago there was only the place called Earth, and the place called Heavens. That was the Universe as we understood it. It's considerably bigger today. It will quite likely be considerably bigger tomorrow than today.

Thanks Spendulus, I made the correction, at least you understand what I meant ie. something that exists beyond space and time.

According to my understanding from what you said earlier, you also believe that something exists outside of space and time, however you choose to term it "undefined" because science wouldn't and couldn't address it.

[Kiir]

Profiling people into one basket such as "atheist", "christian", "muslim", etc. is wrong on so many levels.

Just like every leftie, for example, is different, every blue eye person is different, etc. etc., I could go on for days with examples.

Generalization = SUBoptimal thinking of other people, limiting your view to the point that it's most probably totally invalid, meaning it has no weight.


Also, who made a term "atheists"?

Why do you want to describe a person by ONE personal choice? That's kinda stupid, lol, not to mention wrong.

This pic has a good point and I could probably find more.

http://www.humanreligions.info/atheism_and_rationalism.jpg


POINT: Labeling people based on ONE (or only few) attribute, personal choice or something similar is INCORRECT because it means you don't understand that people have hundreds of "attributes".

Honestly, labeling like that says more about the labeler -.-

[ATMD]

Profiling people into one basket such as "atheist", "christian", "muslim", etc. is wrong on so many levels.

Just like every leftie, for example, is different, every blue eye person is different, etc. etc., I could go on for days with examples.

Generalization = SUBoptimal thinking of other people, limiting your view to the point that it's most probably totally invalid, meaning it has no weight.


Also, who made a term "atheists"?

Why do you want to describe a person by ONE personal choice? That's kinda stupid, lol, not to mention wrong.

This pic has a good point and I could probably find more.

http://www.humanreligions.info/atheism_and_rationalism.jpg


POINT: Labeling people based on ONE (or only few) attribute, personal choice or something similar is INCORRECT because it means you don't understand that people have hundreds of "attributes".

Honestly, labeling like that says more about the labeler -.-

When we speak of an "atheist", we are not making generalizations. We are saying that he/she does not believe in an intelligent creator of this universe. That is the entirety of the definition. No more generalization can be made. Atheists can range from kind, loving people to deranged serial killers. So are theists, they can also range from kind, loving people to serial killers as well.

[Kiir]

When we speak of an "atheist", we are not making generalizations. We are saying that he/she does not believe in an intelligent creator of this universe. That is the entirety of the definition. No more generalization can be made. Atheists can range from kind, loving people to deranged serial killers. So are theists, they can also range from kind, loving people to serial killers as well.

Well, perhaps you, sir, are talking like that and that's a healthy view imho.

On the other hand, if I had to bet, I'd say the majority doesn't seperate those things so well as you do.

Why names for such things, btw?

I don't believe in God, but I'm open to possibilites, hell even "God", too.
I'd need some proof, ofc, but that's not the point.

Why label me "atheist" or "agnostic" or whatever the term is for "my case"? xD

If I say "I don't like dogs" (I do, cats too, most animals, really xD) I wouldn't be called "Doesn't like dogs person" xD

[ATMD]

Well, perhaps you, sir, are talking like that and that's a healthy view imho.

On the other hand, if I had to bet, I'd say the majority doesn't seperate those things so well as you do.

Why names for such things, btw?

I don't believe in God, but I'm open to possibilites, hell even "God", too.
I'd need some proof, ofc, but that's not the point.

Why label me "atheist" or "agnostic" or whatever the term is for "my case"? xD

If I say "I don't like dogs" (I do, cats too, most animals, really xD) I wouldn't be called "Doesn't like dogs person" xD

Thank you Kiir  

These are just terms, even for pet preferences there are labels such as he's a "cat person" or she's a "dog person" etc.

We use terms for specific meanings, please don't feel bad about it. It is just to make us understand each other easier.

[Kiir]

Thank you Kiir  

These are just terms, even for pet preferences there are labels such as he's a "cat person" or she's a "dog person" etc.

We use terms for specific meanings, please don't feel bad about it. It is just to make us understand each other easier.

Yeah, I get it. It can help, case by case basis. I guess some humans tend to ruin everything, even "neutral labeling" xD

[ATMD]

Thank you Kiir  

These are just terms, even for pet preferences there are labels such as he's a "cat person" or she's a "dog person" etc.

We use terms for specific meanings, please don't feel bad about it. It is just to make us understand each other easier.

Yeah, I get it. It can help, case by case basis. I guess some humans tend to ruin everything, even "neutral labeling" xD

Very true