By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why Ricky Gervais is an atheist

The Fury on 08 May 2012

A great article and well said by him, my opinion of him went up slightly.



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network
TheProphet on 08 May 2012
ithis said:
TheProphet said:

 

The logic is not flawed. Perhaps my explanation was inadequate. I will try again.

 The universe and time were created. Only a God could create time and a universe.  

 

 Since God created time with the universe there was no time until God created it. (I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth trying to understand.) Therefore there could never be anything before God because time did not exist before God created it. 

 

The reason this explanation is satisfying because it is based on a consistent appreciation of advanced science.  It is not based on a faulty comparison between before and after time was created. 

 

 

And we know the bolded from where?

Also, the fact that the universe needs a god that always was to be created is nauseatingly ilogical to me.

The thing is, I get the feeling that an universe that was not created is ilogical to others. I just for the life of me can't understand, can't feel and most certanly don't believe it.

We know that the universe and time were created from NASA. From http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html the universe is 13.7 billion years old at the right. Therefore at the left of the time scale the time is zero, the beginning of time.

If you are nausiated by the logic of a creator then where did everything come from. Are you saying that everything came from nothing, and that intelligence came from the rocks of primordial earth? This is nothing more than denial. It's your right to believe anything you want. Howver, over 90 percent of people agree with me. 



Porcupine_I on 08 May 2012
TheProphet said:
ithis said:
TheProphet said:

 

The logic is not flawed. Perhaps my explanation was inadequate. I will try again.

 The universe and time were created. Only a God could create time and a universe.

 

 Since God created time with the universe there was no time until God created it. (I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth trying to understand.) Therefore there could never be anything before God because time did not exist before God created it. 

 

The reason this explanation is satisfying because it is based on a consistent appreciation of advanced science.  It is not based on a faulty comparison between before and after time was created. 

 

 

And we know the bolded from where?

Also, the fact that the universe needs a god that always was to be created is nauseatingly ilogical to me.

The thing is, I get the feeling that an universe that was not created is ilogical to others. I just for the life of me can't understand, can't feel and most certanly don't believe it.

We know that the universe and time were created from NASA. From http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html the universe is 13.7 billion years old at the right. Therefore at the left of the time scale the time is zero, the beginning of time.

If you are nausiated by the logic of a creator then where did everything come from. Are you saying that everything came from nothing, and that intelligence came from the rocks of primordial earth? This is nothing more than denial. It's your right to believe anything you want. Howver, over 90 percent of people agree with me. 

i hope you realize that you will have to abandon the words of the bible for your theories?



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

TheProphet on 08 May 2012
highwaystar101 said:
Mummelmann said:
highwaystar101 said:
TheProphet said:
The reason Ricky Gervais is an atheist is because he hasn't really bothered to think about it

First the intellectual argument. There is plenty of evidence for God in science. One only has to look and think for themselves. The universe has a beginning. It was created. That agrees with the Bible that was written thousands of years ago. Life is really complicated. The chance of life resulting from random mutations is so low it is ludicrous. The only intelligent explanation is that there is a very intelligence creator. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. So Ricky Garvais is dead wrong when he thinks that science does not support a belief in God. I know some scientist believe this, but they are a small group of irrational people. Most intelligent people believe in God. The argument for atheism from science is not credible.

Hi. First, welcome to VGChartz. Second, I really don't want to look like I'm bashing you, so I'm sorry if I cause offence.

You seem to think you are coming at this from a "scientific" perspective, which you are most certainly not. Here's the deal with science; if theory A is wrong, it doesn't mean theory B is right. You seem to think that is how it works.

Let's assume for a minute that evolution/abiogenesis is wrong, and let's assume that everything couldn't have come from nothing - Then why does that make God's existence fact?

For example. If I say our space and time was caused by the big bang (theory A) and you say it was created by god because something had to initiate it (theory B), then you can prove theory A is wrong all you like, but it doesn't make theory B right. The actual answer could be theory C, or D.

I haven't seen you take this into consideration in this thread so far. All I've seen you say is "the universe had a beginning, all things that have a beginning need an origin. The origin can only be God". I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it and in no way falls under "science". All you have are a bunch of made up premises and then an arbitrary conclusion.

How can you test this? How can you find out that your conclusion is the correct one given your premises? How can you even test that your premises are correct? - you can't just rely on knocking down other theories and then claiming yours the victor, it doesn't work like that.

And that is why some of us understand that one cannot apply a scientific approach to philosphical issues and vice versa. Religious zealots that have no grasp on science and its application is nothing new. Have you seen Kent Hovind trying to explain the Great Flood?

Are you saying that the Hovind "theory" doesn't make any sense and that it is full of holes!?! How dare you! Dr Hovind's "theory" is watertight (unlike the crust of the Earth, which shot out subterranian water to the moon under the pressure of the Earth's crust, apparently).

The thing is, if religious people want religion to compete with accepted scientific theories (like many of them do), then they need to understand the structure of science. They can't just say any old stuff and expect to get away with it.

Thank you for the welcome. I don't mind reading other points of view. I am constantly examining my own beliefs and compare them to others to improve them. 

I agree that science uses only the best theory. A theory may be proven wrong in the future. I am only saying the the current science supports the Biblical understanding of God. The universe had a beginning just like Genesis says. Current science agrees with the Bible.

To begin with, Darwin talked about evolution after the first life froms. Evolution can be consistent with divine creation. Abiogenesis has no scientifically verifiable explanation for the origin of life. Some scientists in this field believe they will never know how life started. I agree with them. Life is too complex to randomly come together.

I am not saying that science proves God exists. I am saying that current science supports that theological conclusion. God is, as I said, outside the universe. Science requires material to test. Science can not therefore prove God's existence. However, one can now reasonably say, given the overwhelming design in the universe, its origin, and the complexity of life, that a designer is the best philosophical explanation. The alternative is that everything came from nothing. That I think is a very poor explanation.

If the universe existed forever then I would have a very difficult time arguing that there was a God creator. Some scientists tried to advance this theory, but it does not fit the scientific facts of the big bang. 

 

 

 

  

 



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 08 May 2012
TheProphet said:

If you are nausiated by the logic of a creator then where did everything come from. Are you saying that everything came from nothing, and that intelligence came from the rocks of primordial earth? This is nothing more than denial. It's your right to believe anything you want. Howver, over 90 percent of people agree with me. 

The brain consists of atoms, thus intelligence consists of atoms. That is science.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 08 May 2012
TheProphet said:

Thank you for the welcome. I don't mind reading other points of view. I am constantly examining my own beliefs and compare them to others to improve them. 

I agree that science uses only the best theory. A theory may be proven wrong in the future. I am only saying the the current science supports the Biblical understanding of God. The universe had a beginning just like Genesis says. Current science agrees with the Bible.

To begin with, Darwin talked about evolution after the first life froms. Evolution can be consistent with divine creation. Abiogenesis has no scientifically verifiable explanation for the origin of life. Some scientists in this field believe they will never know how life started. I agree with them. Life is too complex to randomly come together.

I am not saying that science proves God exists. I am saying that current science supports that theological conclusion. God is, as I said, outside the universe. Science requires material to test. Science can not therefore prove God's existence. However, one can now reasonably say, given the overwhelming design in the universe, its origin, and the complexity of life, that a designer is the best philosophical explanation. The alternative is that everything came from nothing. That I think is a very poor explanation.

If the universe existed forever then I would have a very difficult time arguing that there was a God creator. Some scientists tried to advance this theory, but it does not fit the scientific facts of the big bang. 

 

I don't think you understand how science works...



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

ithis on 08 May 2012
TheProphet said:

We know that the universe and time were created from NASA. From http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html the universe is 13.7 billion years old at the right. Therefore at the left of the time scale the time is zero, the beginning of time.

If you are nausiated by the logic of a creator then where did everything come from. Are you saying that everything came from nothing, and that intelligence came from the rocks of primordial earth? This is nothing more than denial. It's your right to believe anything you want. Howver, over 90 percent of people agree with me. 

Quote from the NASA site:
"A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of "inflation" produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe..."

The far left depicts the earliest moment we can probe. It appeares that it originated from nothing, but did it really?

Your theory claims that god made everything and that we should stop looking since there is nothing past this that can explain it. Others think differently and keep looking. We can see from history that every time someone claimed that we know all there is to know, they were gravely mistaken. To think that you live in the time where we reached the limit of new things to observe is a mistake. To draw conclusions about the universe from the small amount of information that we could soo far observe is also a mistake.

I found this, must be an interesting read: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang

(will read it later, no time now)



yo_john117 on 08 May 2012
TheProphet said:
highwaystar101 said:

Are you saying that the Hovind "theory" doesn't make any sense and that it is full of holes!?! How dare you! Dr Hovind's "theory" is watertight (unlike the crust of the Earth, which shot out subterranian water to the moon under the pressure of the Earth's crust, apparently).

The thing is, if religious people want religion to compete with accepted scientific theories (like many of them do), then they need to understand the structure of science. They can't just say any old stuff and expect to get away with it.

Thank you for the welcome. I don't mind reading other points of view. I am constantly examining my own beliefs and compare them to others to improve them. 

I agree that science uses only the best theory. A theory may be proven wrong in the future. I am only saying the the current science supports the Biblical understanding of God. The universe had a beginning just like Genesis says. Current science agrees with the Bible.

To begin with, Darwin talked about evolution after the first life froms. Evolution can be consistent with divine creation. Abiogenesis has no scientifically verifiable explanation for the origin of life. Some scientists in this field believe they will never know how life started. I agree with them. Life is too complex to randomly come together.

I am not saying that science proves God exists. I am saying that current science supports that theological conclusion. God is, as I said, outside the universe. Science requires material to test. Science can not therefore prove God's existence. However, one can now reasonably say, given the overwhelming design in the universe, its origin, and the complexity of life, that a designer is the best philosophical explanation. The alternative is that everything came from nothing. That I think is a very poor explanation.

If the universe existed forever then I would have a very difficult time arguing that there was a God creator. Some scientists tried to advance this theory, but it does not fit the scientific facts of the big bang. 

I agree with this 100%

I think this quote from George Wald (Nobel prize winner in 1967) speaks quite clearly about why people don't believe in God.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald

 

Nobody is going to be able to change the others mind through debating or arguing. When this thread is over Athiests will think they have won the arguments likewise Christians will also think that they have won the arguments. Neither side can prove with any amount of certainty that the other side is wrong. In the end its simply a faith step. Do you choose to have faith and believe in God or do you choose to have faith to not believe in God. For me personally, it would take more faith to not believe in God then it would take to believe in God. (I'm sure most Athiests feel the same way but with things switched around)



Andrespetmonkey on 08 May 2012
yo_john117 said:

I agree with this 100%

I think this quote from George Wald (Nobel prize winner in 1967) speaks quite clearly about why people don't believe in God.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald

 

Nobody is going to be able to change the others mind through debating or arguing. When this thread is over Athiests will think they have won the arguments likewise Christians will also think that they have won the arguments. Neither side can prove with any amount of certainty that the other side is wrong. In the end its simply a faith step. Do you choose to have faith and believe in God or do you choose to have faith to not believe in God. For me personally, it would take more faith to not believe in God then it would take to believe in God. (I'm sure most Athiests feel the same way but with things switched around)

@quote "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose." That's simply not true. The best answer we can give now concerning the origin of life with any certainty is "I don't know", not Spontaneous generation or God (not to mention a personal, benevolent, omnipotent God). There are many theories floating around about the origin of life, and although as I said, we can't yet believe in one with any certainty, this does show that there are far more options than Spontaneous generation or God. Here's a list that summarizes 7 of them.

@bolded I don't get this. I lack a belief in any God because of a lack of evidence. Where is faith involved? I lack a belief in Unicorns because of a lack of evidence. Does that mean I have faith that unicorns don't exist? Ofcourse not. Why doesn't the same apply to God? The burden of proof is on believers, not unbelievers. 

Edit: I hope this doesn't come across as hostile in any way, it's not. I know it's hard not to seem it when debating things like these.



My Music

Jay520 on 08 May 2012

Let's assume the universe wasn't formed by a series of random events. How does that leave God as the only other possibility?. If the universe must have been created by something, why does that thing have to be God? Why did that thing have to have a conscious? Maybe the thing that started the universe was an object from another universe. There is no reason to believe that the thing that started the universe even had a mind. It could just be a black hole from some other universe that spawned our universe.

There's no reason to believe that the creator was an all-knowing, all-powerful being. No reason at all. It may not have even had a conscious. It may not have even been alive.

And if there were a God, what motive would he have for creating a universe? Love? Passion? Doesn't make sense to me.