Yuyutsu, therefore we can agree that God does not exist. Fine, the rest of us can now move on to something more interesting.

But the fact that you either cannot see glaring contradictions in your own statements, or happily accept them - the first foolishness, the second irrational and therefore even worse - disqualifies you from further discussion - on any topic whatsoever. For by your own admission all your words are meaningless. I am afraid there would be more value in chatting to a parrot: at least the parrot isn't pretending to be imparting information.

Dear Watcher,

Have I stopped you, or anyone else from discussing other things which you find more interesting?

While you may not, other members of this forum find the topic of the existence of God most fascinating.

If you look back at my first post here, it was addressed to members such as Runner and ALGOREisRICH who commented earlier, and to other religious silent-readers of this thread. It meant to show them that there is no dichotomy between atheism and religion. It was to tell them not to waste time worrying whether God exists or not, for religion is about LOVING God, not about materializing Him, that such attempts to materialize God are an error and in fact detract one from the path.

My words are indeed meaningless to those who only want to hear about the world, but for those who have ears to hear, they are full of meaning.

If you find contradictions in what I said, you are welcome to point them out.

I will continue to discuss here with those who want to discuss issues with me, on a rational level with those who so prefer, and on a heart level with others who so prefer. If you are unhappy with this, you may ask Graham to kick me out.

Yuyutsu, this discussion, as Eccles64 pointed out with some annoyance, is supposed to be about The Australian Book of Atheism, not a forum for trolls to take over.

If you wish to discuss meaningless anti-concepts such as loving something that doesn't exist or nonsense like there is no dichotomy between contradictory positions, go start your own discussion as a new topic.

AJ Philips

“I’m well aware of that, Philip.” (AJP)

No, AJP Philips, you were not aware of that, or you would not have written,

“The big bang theory asserts no such thing… No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.”

So either you were not aware of the implications or you were trying to bluff your way out, i.e. using deceit in your arguments.

You should take your very own advice seriously, “Come back when you understand science a little better and can provide arguments without fallacies.”

Further, your arguments can’t get very far since you’re arguing from ignorance and also wasting the time of those of us in the forum with deceitful statements.

The Big Bang theory and its significance to leading physicists and cosmologists

Albert Einstein had to admit he made an error soon after evidence confirms the big bang theory.

“Einstein chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (Fred Heeren)

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
(Albert Einstein)

The Nobel prize for physics was awarded to John Mather and George Smoot in 2006 for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. Smoot is a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote

"The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated" (p. 135)…Until the late 1910's, humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn't take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning" (p. 30).” Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation. Smoot and Davidson)

My, my, Philip. You creationists become such vicious creatures when cornered. Jesus would be proud.

<<No, AJP Philips, you were not aware of that, or you would not have written,

“The big bang theory asserts no such thing… No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.”>>

Yes, I said that. In fact, I’ll say it again:

The big bang theory asserts no such thing. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.

And once more for good luck:

The big bang theory asserts no such thing. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.

Why?

Because as I said before, I was responding to your assertion that the big bang proved god and your assertion would only have been somewhat intelligible if you were approaching from the belief that there was nothing before the big bang - something we don’t know. But if you were taking this into account, then please, by all means, explain how the big bang suggests there is a god.

What kind of an idiot would honestly think that an expanding universe didn't start it's expansion from a singularity, anyway? You're really pushing [insert expletive here] up hill - to save your own hide - if you honestly think you could convince others of that.

Show me once where I have used deceit?

Show me once where I have used a fallacy?

Show me once where I have used an argument from ignorance?

Or take back your claims. Baring false witness is a sin, remember, Philip?