Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[faye]

lol..i thought you were done with me.

be careful, this might be a trap.

[faye]

Nor is there need of a 'creator'...

so where is your poof for THIS claim, then???????

[ozymandias]

so where is your poof for THIS claim, then???????

The origin of the universe can be explained without resorting to the use of a creator, thus there is no *need* for a creator. I'm not sure why you think this needs proof -- anyone can see that if you can explain X without Y, Y is not *NEEDED* to explain X.

A creator is still possible, but it is not *needed* to explain anything. An example of this is I do not need to resort to using magical elves to explain the creation of the sandwich I ate for lunch -- I can explain the origin and creation of that sandwich without using elves. You *can* come up with an explanation of that sandwich that uses elves, if you felt the desire.

Furthermore, adding a creator of the universe into the mix only complicates issues. For instance, if you argue that the origin of the universe constitutes an action, and all actions need an actor, thus a creator is needed, you now have to explain the origin of your creator. If you argue that a creator does not, itself need a creator, then that same argument can be applied to the origin of the universe. To go back to the elves, you could say that elves made my sandwich, and then used magic to make me think I made it -- but now you have to explain the origin of the elves, and the origin of their magic on top of all the earlier issues. They don't simplify the issue at all.

If you expect your guesses involving a creator to hold water, you need to provide evidence that one is needed, otherwise it is simply superfluous and unneeded.

[faye]

neat gibber, to avoid giving evidence..lol.

first you say you don't have a specific belief in how creation is manifested and now you are counting on an explanation that says no creator was needed.
make up your mind.

you don't know that a creator was/ is not NEEDED.
one can put forward ANY theory but it still does not prove that an intelligent creator was not necessary.

hahaha...please dear, i don't need others to agree with my view of reality. can you not get that idea between your ears?

if you are 'holding water', my advice is to quickly get yourself to the loo.

[ozymandias]

neat gibber, to avoid giving evidence..lol.

I'm sorry -- what evidence is needed? I pointed out that there is no need to resort to a creator to explain the origin of the universe. You asked for proof, and I pointed out that it has been *done*. How much more proof can you need?

first you say you don't have a specific belief in how creation is manifested and now you are counting on an explanation that says no creator was needed.
make up your mind.

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding simple, straight forward English. I'm not 'counting' on anything. I just pointed out that you do not need a creator to explain the universe, because the universe has been explained without using a creator.

If I tell you I can drink a glass of water without a straw, and proceed to pick up the glass and drink it, the fact that I did it without a straw is proof no straw was needed.

you don't know that a creator was/ is not NEEDED.

Sure I do. A creator is *not* needed to explain any of the currently observed evidence, because explanations exist that do not use a creator.

one can put forward ANY theory but it still does not prove that an intelligent creator was not necessary.

I think you are confused. These are not just 'any' theory. These, unlike creationism, are not just 'any' theory, these are scientific theories that fit the observed evidence.

hahaha...please dear, i don't need others to agree with my view of reality. can you not get that idea between your ears?

Then why do you get so wound up when people reject your mystical guesses as unsound logic and silly 'theories'?

if you are 'holding water', my advice is to quickly get yourself to the loo.

Sorry I used a common English phrase you got confused by. The term 'holding water' means 'makes sense', basically.

[faye]

like i said, once again, you have no proof against the need for a creator.
you claim that there is still varied ideas about the origin of creation, amongst scientists. therefore the origin of creation is still 'up in the air'.
so to CLAIM that there is no need for a creator, means that you are dismissing a possibility, that is still as feasible, to many peoples minds, as any other possibility.
just because science dogma, says such and such 'is' or 'is not so', does not make it necessarily truth, especially when they are, as you have claimed, still seeking for the answers and change their dogma, when new information is found.

if there is supposedly, no reason for creation, then isn't creation itself, illogical?

what proof do you have that only the scientific method is the correct and only method, to judge everything?

it is a pity that you lack a sense of humour, which diminishes your comprehension of those that do, thereby assuming that i am perturbed by your dismissal of any of my ideas.
get over yourself, child. your views and how your mind works, are interesting to study, but certainly don't disturb my equilibrium.

[faye]

'upin the air' ,means- still not determined or very uncertain.
so's you don't get confused.

[ozymandias]

like i said, once again, you have no proof against the need for a creator.

You have no proof I can't drink water without a straw, despite the fact that I did it.

you claim that there is still varied ideas about the origin of creation, amongst scientists. therefore the origin of creation is still 'up in the air'.

Yes -- and none of those explanations need magic to explain anything.

so to CLAIM that there is no need for a creator, means that you are dismissing a possibility,

No, I am not. You are ignoring what I am saying -- again. There may be a creator. Just like you *can* drink water with a straw. That is *not* the only solution, however. There may be a creator, but a creator is not *needed* to explain the universe. There is a huge difference.

that is still as feasible, to many peoples minds, as any other possibility.
just because science dogma, says such and such 'is' or 'is not so', does not make it necessarily truth, especially when they are, as you have claimed, still seeking for the answers and change their dogma, when new information is found.

Exactly.

if there is supposedly, no reason for creation, then isn't creation itself, illogical?

No.

what proof do you have that only the scientific method is the correct and only method, to judge everything?

The lack of a better system. If a better system existed, science would be using that system -- that's the whole point of science.

it is a pity that you lack a sense of humour, which diminishes your comprehension of those that do, thereby assuming that i am perturbed by your dismissal of any of my ideas.

It's a pity you would rather troll and pretend I say things I don't, and don't want to have an honest conversation.

get over yourself, child. your views and how your mind works, are interesting to study, but certainly don't disturb my equilibrium.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. For someone 'not disturbed' you put a lot of effort into mental gymnastics to deliberately ignore what I actually say, and to tell me my opinion doesn't bother you....

[ozymandias]

'upin the air' ,means- still not determined or very uncertain.
so's you don't get confused.

Don't worry -- I'm not the one that repeatedly gets confused by common English sayings -- that's you.

[ډګروال]

this guy doesnt answer any questions.
he is just dancing around trying his best to ignore being honest.

[faye]

lol, i know. he's a laugh.

evasive tactics seem to be common amongst the self proclaimed, logical folk.

still no proof that creation does not need a creator. no reason to creation but it is apparently logical, according to the 'scientist'.

[ozymandias]

this guy doesnt answer any questions.
he is just dancing around trying his best to ignore being honest.

I believe 'faye' is a woman.

[ډګروال]

I believe 'faye' is a woman.

again you are showing the failure that you are by saying faye is a woman.
this is exactly why you cant and wont answer ny questions because you are dishonest.

[faye]

I believe 'faye' is a woman.

do you have any proof of that belief?

[ozymandias]

again you are showing the failure that you are by saying faye is a woman.

I believe that she, herself has called herself an 'old woman' several times.

this is exactly why you cant and wont answer ny questions because you are dishonest.

I may have been confused. Since I am perfectly willing to answer all but personally identifying questions, and do so regularly, I did not understand you intended your comment to refer to me.

I'm sorry if you feel I am not answering questions. Do you have a specific question you saw asked that I missed and did not answer?