Questions for Atheists

These questions are probably not what you are expecting. I am trying to make you think a little. The Atheist would argue that a creator is useless because physics does such a great job explaining everything. Therefore if you are an atheist I must assume you know some science. Now here comes the questions that I really do not understand: What is the cause of the difference between the six types of quarks and their corresponding anti-quarks? What is the nature of Dark Energy, and how did it evolve? What would happen if a quark would knock into another quark? Would it be cut in half? If quarks can be cut in half, what would you call a half of a quark? What would you call half of that? If the whole universe could theoretically be broken down into the most elementary thing (force, energy, matter, anti-matter, wave, partical, time, space, or concept) how would this simple thing possibly do anything without interacting with another thing (same as before)? Why do laws of physics breakdown during the Big Bang? What laws did nature follow? And finally, how does gravity really work? I am not that good at science. I hope all the atheists out there can help me out.

I heard what I am saying straight out of the mouth of Richard Dawkins, the world's most popular atheist. I found a debate on youtube in which he made a comment along the lines of:"What is the point of a god already? If we can explain everything without a god, why do we need to bring such a thing into our mind?" This is not an exact quote, but it is what he was saying.On a side note, what do you believe? If you are an atheist please explain your reason. Were you ever part of an organized religion? Did this religion have an impact on your views? If you are an athiest, please tell me when you became an atheist? I need some information if I am to make my point. Thank you for your response.

You are right about my motive. I did not ask theists these question because a theist would admit that the world cannot be understood completely by human beings. Is this not why the first humans believed in a god. Now I have a question for you personally, have you ever considered a different religion than Christianity? How long did you ponder before chosing atheism? Was there an underlying reason for you chosing to abandon the Christian faith (assuming you were once a Christian)? I just want to let you know that I am not and have never been a Christian. Thank you for responding to my post. Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

Thank you for pointing this out. I am sorry for any misuse of tenses, but I was refering to the "can" aspect, not the "does" aspect.
It is obvious from reading an elementary textbook in physics that there are still some problems with the current ideas. What I meant to question was whether it is possible to put all the laws of nature into something understandable to the human brain. I tried to make this point by showing how an explanation for every aspect of the universe is not possible. To start, I show that everything can be broken into smaller things. And, any two things with different properties must have a cause for the difference in property. Then I show how it is not possible to break everything down into a most elementary thing that would be understood by humans. I also want to show that if it is not possible to explain the entire universe in terms of physical properties, a force, not comprehendable to human logic must be used to explain it. This lends itself to the theistic point of view. Theism does not attempt to explain the universe. Rather, it uses logic to conclude that an all powerfull Being, not comprehendable to humans, must exist.

So if your particular religion does not make sense to you, you will reject the existence of any true religion? I suggest you start to search through other religions.

I actually have a very clever understanding of how G-d can control every aspect of the world today, even if science can theoretically explain the entire universe today. All you have to say is that G-d initiated the Big Bang. I don't think science can ever understand the cause of the Big Bang. Assuming the cause of the Big Bang was the all-powerful G-d, it can be assumed that G-d set forth the Big Bang with precise calculations. G-d would be able to know exactly what the out come of the Big Bang will be. Since G-d wanted life to exist, He would have set the Big Bang in precisely the exact parameters that would cause life to eventually form. In fact, G-d could set the Big Bang to exactly the correct parameters in order for anything to happen that He so desires. All you need is for G-d to know all of the possible outcomes of the Big Bang, and G-d is actually controlling the entire world from its beginning. Also, since G-d must not be in the realm of time (since He was the cause of time), G-d controlling the world from the beginning is the equivalent of G-d controlling the world right now.

I am sorry but did you even read what you wrote. You are saying that the most elementary partical in the universe is a "complex structure." You are obviously missing my point.

The one written in the Torah. There is actually a passage in the Torah which states that there is only one G-d. G-d is just referred to by many names.

I am just proving that the many names in the Torah that refer to G-d are all referring to the same G-d. This can be proven based on the Torah. You asked me which god I am referring to, and my answer to you is: The G-d that is written in the Torah.

Look up the history, the organized religion of Hinduism is much younger than Judaism. The religion you are referring to was not at all organized. Rather, it was a bunch of random sets of beliefs, much like members of this discussion.Also, I think it will be more beneficial for you if you would read whole paragraphs and not just zoom in on every letter. In a way, your responces to my post has actually proven my point. You are not able to comprehend what I said because you looked at every point individually, without even considering the actual arguement. Allow me to demonstrate this with your post: You are argueing from ignorance. First of all how do you know that it was decided. You are asking as if it is a fact already. Again you are making an assumption. How do you know what the Hindu's have to say. This is an argument from ignorance.You see if I break your words into peices it is not possible for me to see what you are really saying. I can go even further if you want. This is absurd. How can anything decide that any god is the true one. Whatever you said before this statement cannot prove this statement to be true.Do you notice what I did? I analyzed your words very carefully, and so I would actually be completely clueless as to what you are trying to say. Lets try some more. Your logic in this word makes no sense. How can you say "and" without saying something before it. This also is meaningless. Are you trying to ask a question or tell a story? This makes absolutely no sense. In fact it is not comprehendable. You could be refering to many things with this letter.Do you understand what I am trying to tell you. You are gaining nothing by dispoving every single sentence of an arguement. You are only showing that you dont understand the point that I am trying to make. If you want to have a debate, why not give your opinion in a nice thought out rebutal?

Your bias is completely transparent. You obviously did not understand what I was saying in this post. It was a perfect response to Rrhain's load of useless comments. I clearly explained how he was taking out individual sentence from my posts just for the sake of arguement. Then I gave some examples which demonstrated the problem with what he was doing. I dont have time for your biased warnings.

You obviously did not read my entire post either.

This post states my point for the last time. I was trying to inform you about how your method of posting does not act in a logical manner. Your latest response just illustrates your desire to create arguments without fully reading the post to which you are responding to. I understand that you know very well what you are doing, and you do not wish to have a fair and logical debate. You take my sarcasm in my previous post, and pretend that you do not know what I am trying to say by arguing against the sarcastic points. Then you admit what you are actually doing in your own words: Therefore, I do not wish to respond to you any further. I hope you continue to have fun posting.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

If you are an atheist than you must also believe in materialism. This means that you are nothing more than a large amount of molecules interacting in complicated ways. This also means that your opinions are a direct result of your genes and your surroundings. Therefore, it is possible for me to put the chemical that you call yourself into a different environment in order to change your opinions. Theoretically speaking, with chemicals and properly chosen language, anyone can manipulate your brain into thinking whatever they want. Do you believe this? If not, explain where I went wrong. If you do believe this, why do you consider your opinion to be worth much to begin with.