How do you know? It's an empirical question. There's obviously no such computer at the present time. It seems hopelessly optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on perspective) to presume that it's possible to build one.

Sometimes, but I don't have a definite opinion. I think that it's incorrect to be generally optimistic or pessimistic about technology because it's basically unpredictable.

i dont understand why so many of you hold science in such high regard. i may be wrong but im pretty sure they are still having a hard time proving whether light travels in particles or waves. so how could they possibly prove or disprove god(s)?

Actually, there is what can be called evidence in favor of a godless universe. While not exactly proof (meaning that it doesn't guarantee it), it does, along with logic, force the prospect of any gods into a very narrow gap. One so small that it is best to say that god does not exist, even if in reality that means, the probability of gods existing is negligable.

The Big Bang, real or not, is a bit arrogant I think...if that is correct? 'Cause like, according to that theory, we are a grain of sand within a grain of sand of the world's entire coastline...so how can we possibly come up with a theory that explains such vastness from our little nanometre of the universe?

I'm sure aliens across the infinite have come up with a "big swirl"...or something more accurate

Science is always changing though, I'm sure a better theory will come up in 50 years.

...

And well, just to have it said, those observations don't seem to advocate a swirl theory. Feel free to construct a swirl where all components move outwards, ever more distant from another.

Well when I said swirl it was just an example for any other theory that might come up

But like I said, Big bang, big deal. I don't see why it contradicts God

In ‘Quantum Cosmology’s Implication of Atheism’, for instance, he presents the argument that the Hartle-Hawking model, which predicts a less-than-1 initial unconditional probability of the universe supporting life, contradicts the notion that God willfully created a universe supporting life, which implies a conditional probability of exactly 1, the opposite of what cosmology tells us.

His Big Bang Cosmological Argument, detailed in A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence, is in the same vein. We know that singularities are inherently chaotic, insofar as the laws of physics as we know them, as well as the notions of space and time, break down progressively as we approach it mathematically. None of the physical values of any particle in a singularity are completely predictable. There is no macroscopic or quantum level in a singularity, so even probabilistic determinism does not apply.

We have a major contradiction there with the account of divine creation. If God created the universe with the aim of creating life, which is the case in Christianity for instance, then the universe should unfold predictably, with an ultimate goal in view. But this is not the case. The universe unfolded unpredictably, with no ultimate goal in view. Therefore the idea of divine creation is false, and with it theism.

Well when I said swirl it was just an example for any other theory that might come up

But like I said, Big bang, big deal. I don't see why it contradicts God

I'm don't agree that it does so entirely. However, the most common argument for this goes something like this:.

Space/time exists within a bubble right? It had a beginning, and it will have an end

God exists outside space and time. Therefore there is actually no logic behind His existence, since our logic is restricted and limited to within space and time.

[...]

I mean, faith is inherently irrational and illogical. But it's not like EVERYTHING has to make sense does it?

We have our free will after all.

Atheist: someone who denies the existence of God.
From the Greek atheoi, typically translated as "those who are without God".

The requirements for the existence of God are:

Total Omniscience: knowing everything that can be known.
Omnipotence: power with no limits.
Omnipresence: the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time; unbounded or universal presence.

Between all of us on this forum, there may be, say, 5 percent of all the knowledge in the entire world (that's probably pushing it, because when I mean knowledge in the entire world, I mean all the knowledge there is to know). Is it not possible that God is present in the remaining 95 percent?

Atheists proclaim that they know God does not exist.

To absolutely know something, you must test the facts against all speculation. Because God would have to be the Creator of everything, everything must be examined. So to truly call oneself an atheist, one must have tested all religious writings against all other religious writings, all arguments to both sides against each other, and have literally scoured the entire knowledge base of the earth, coming to the conclusion that there is absolutely no God. You would have to know and be able to manipulate all the workings of all that occurs all at once.

Anyone done this?

If so, then that makes you:

Omniscient: all-knowing.
Omnipotent: all-powerful.
Omnipresent: present everywhere, at all times.

In essence, God. But atheism says God doesn't exist, so that doesn't work.

One may say that they don't believe that God exists because no one has proved it to them. Alright. Just because no one has proved it to you does not deny God's existence. No one, atheist or otherwise, has ever met everyone that has ever existed (that gets a little close to that whole omniscient thing). Isn't it possible someone, somewhere out there could prove the existence of God somehow?

Obviously it is impossible for us as humans to exhibit all the traits mentioned above. How can an atheist know for sure that God does not exist? But all the atheists I've ever known have always said that, without doubt, God does not exist. As mentioned above, who can truly know? That means atheists must be putting faith in the "fact" that God does not exist because one cannot "know" for sure. Wait...if it's a fact, what's the faith for?

Hebrews 11:1 says:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Undisputed facts have never required faith. To believe in God definitely requires faith. But if atheism is a statement of pure, undisputed, unadulterated facts, there should be absolutely no faith involved.

Man, I love paradoxes.

Can God create a stone so massive that he cannot lift it? And if he cannot lift it, is he really all-powerful?

If God is so powerful and all-knowing, why did he create flawed creatures in the beginning? I.e. Adam and Eve, or worse, Lilith who was the vampiric succubus first wife of Adam.

Why, for that matter, did God create Satan?

You can never know 100% of anything. But you know what? It doesn't matter. We get to a point where enough is enough and we conclude confidently that there's no God in existence...do we know that for certain? No...but we see it as though the chances of us being wrong are like a million to one.

Do you have to take a leap of faith to assume that there are no dodo birds left on the earth? No, not really...see what I'm getting at?

is just a matter of faith you cannot prove or deny the God's exisistance, for that simple fact is just a myth... a misterious "thing" that no one knows what the hell

Its clear that there are ordered patterns in nature that run parallel to ordered patterns in man made objects that enable us to identify that it was "made".

DNA may well have existed before genes- random nucleotides may have bonded together and base paired to form DNA (not containing any useful sequences- producing useless proteins). Over time mutations may have caused base sequence changes, causing beneficial proteins to be produced, followed by the whole natural selection/evolution idea-

The words underlined requires the premise that "no creator was needed" to be true.

When in fact, whether it came about with or without an external force is unobserved.

Till this point neither the theists nor the atheists can claim that their stance has been proven by evidence.

However, the theists can always infer from the fact that functional codes/languages that we know of emerged from a pre-existing mind, then apply it to DNA and conclude that the complexity in DNA also emerged from a pre-existing mind as well.

Note that the theist would be using reference point (that all knowm codes/languages require a creator) that is seperate from his main argument (that complexity in DNA required a creator).

Atheists know that the Christian God, or most of the Gods of human religions don't exist, because those Gods often contradict themselves or what we observe in the world.

There was no beginning, but for there to be a god, there must be a beginning. Or at least any notion of a god that anyone's ever thought up.

That was quick. This is exactly what I'm an atheist. God isn't observed in our world. Why would I believe in him? I don't see the faith in that. If religious diatribe like The Bible was inaccessible to us, we wouldn't believe in god, only what we know and experience every day. I haven't experienced "god" in any shape, way, or form in my life once.

Neither have I. There's people who claim to have experienced "the grace of god" or whatever, but let me add something. Indians living in Puerto Rico before Colombus had this ritual where the tribe's sorcerer inhaled tobacco smoke to see the gods and ask for their assistance. The thing is, they inhaled so much smoke at once, that they fainted and had allucinations, because they were getting "tobacco overdoses". Well, my theory is that the drugs naturally produced by the human body in certain situations is what creates this sense of great pleasure, that religious people interpret as "god". I know I may be wrong, so please make any corrections that you believe appropiate.

So has it been determined that it takes just as much faith to believe in something as to not believe in it - or are we still involved in a pissing match? One really can't tell by reading the thread.

So you simply assume the sun will rise tomorrow as opposed to believing it will? Nothing wrong with either - just clarifying.