You're supposedly a grown up with an imaginary friend who thinks adults without an imaginary friend are nutjobs. You might want to examine your psychosis, that way for a brief while at least, it may give the faint impression some sort of philosophy used to be at play.
only zealouts would pose such responses. No wonder you do not get it... How can you even make trades. Do you have any idea of how to weigh or assess the the quality of a question or a bet? I realize I have made a grave error. I thought the two of you were logical. Why don't you look at potential outcomes as a starting point. There could be an infinite variety, names or powers of a creator. So to identify Zeus as the creator - seems to a leap of faith in light of the quantity of potential outcomes. But when most of science says there is a big bang - it is very reasonable to postulate the big bang had a creator. In fact there is no way to say that it is more reasonable to assume the big bang came about from random chance. Arguing against the existence of zeus may be reasonable - arguing against the existence of a Creator is nuts.
there is no more of a reason to think the big bang had a creator as it was random natural occurance. it is only you prior indoctrination from a primitive stone age book that makes you think it had to be a deity that was the creator.
there is no more of a reason to think the big bang had a creator as it was random natural occurance (SIC). 1. There is no scientific fact of a big bang. 2. There is no scientific fact that a theoretical and speculative big bang was a random and natural occurrence. But since you are a true believer who snapped after 50 years and went to the other extreme, I am not questioning your blind faith...
The big bang theory is based on two purely philosophical ASSUMPTIONS, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong then so is every conclusion about the universe based on the theory. So now atheist want me to place faith in the science religion and blindly believe a theory based on assumptions and not FACTS? Where is the logic in blindly believing assumptions ? Where do we draw the line ? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Maybe I should believe in the assumption that there is a God instead.
The point is that the modern day shamans and prophets...the "Scientists"...are above question even when they are just pulling shit out of their arse... They are to be followed without question, their Holy ideas are to be accepted and repeated blindly just like theists accept the TV Evangelists word as the final authority... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he is a "Scientist" and it is true that the "Scientist" has no clothes... However in this "Evolved" age scientific dogma has replaced the human need for faith in a higher power. The "Scientist" has become the higher power of the atheists... Glory Be To The "Scientist" and His Holy Writings...
you must have been indoctrinated into the irrational atheist club. I make arguments which allow for the big bang to be random chance, because I know I have to allow for that chance no matter how small it is. You rule out a Creator without having any science to back it up. Like I said atheists have no fidelity to science.
Depends. Which is worse? Theistic atheism, or Deistic atheism? The theistic atheist believes in "god". But because his god has no resemblance to the true GoD, he is effectively an atheist. These seem to be the one's most inclined to kill in the name of their god...most actively fighting the truth. The deistic atheist denies the existence of any god at all. In one regard, he is a step ahead of the theistic atheist, effectively denying a false god. The theistic atheist must eventually deny his false god in order to step toward the true GoD. In between, he enters the land of neutrality...the land of atheists and agnostics. These are different ways to deny the truth...but without fear of false gods...with less fear generally... they are able to start reasoning. The reasoning process may last several incarnational cycles. Then, reason directs them to invest faith in what is true. That will be the turning point on the path that leads home. Christ!
Why is that very reasonable when there is no real justification for linking the two. Wait a minute. Zeus is a creator. When most of science says there is lightning and thunder - why is it suddenly no longer very reasonable to postulate lightning and thunder had a creator whose name happens to be Zeus? ..then you are nuts to argue against a creator of lightening & thunder whatever It's name. Instead of Zeus perhaps your lightening & thunder creator is called God. "Arguing against the existence of zeus may be reasonable -" as you say, then equally, arguing against the existence of God or a so called creator is too. Now it's known lightening & thunder are natural occurrences the creator of them is made redundant. The only place a "Creator" can ever be argued for, whatever It's name, is where the fallacy of arguing from ignorance is made. A Creator is not a reasonable assumption for the one reason it has not been proven true or false.
And what FACTS do you believe in? Adam and Eve? Not all assumptions are created equal. For example, I can choose to assume that you are marginally capable of thinking critically, and I can choose to assume that you can fly and commune with the spirits. Both are mere assumptions on my part. They are simply hypotheticals. But which of the two assumptions has a bit more credibility based on the available evidence?