Best answer by far.

I love how reasonable you are!!!

@LovinLarge Thank you!

@Redheadedgammy You call me "reasonable", all my exes called me "crazy".
LOL

@KKGator many think I'm crazy. I would say you are in good company. I repeat. I always agree with your posts as if I wrote them.

@Healthydoc70 Thank you!

The Kalam makes me question why there is anything at all; though I've heard the thermodynamic thing a bit and that energy may have always existed.

@tactic8 Yes, “why is there anything at all” is an excellent question. But what I was wondering is: what in the Kalam makes you think that there was or there is an entity that was the first cause?

@Rodatheist I don't know if there is a conscious entity that is the first cause, or not. Does anybody know one way or the other?

@tactic8 I’m sorry but you were the one who started by saying that “I don’t KNOW if an entity was the first cause or if there even was a first cause but the Kalam really makes one think.” as if you are saying that the Kalam really makes you think that there is an entity that was the first cause. I know by the way of reason that there is no such entity; but you are the theist and that is why I was asking what in the Kalam made you think that there is such an entity?

If you don't care, why bother saying anything?

@Storm1752 No there isn't any beginning, no the cause of existence isn't a deity, no infinity is not an impossiblity, no there isn't a cause of a beginning that's isn't there, no there isn't a creator and no there is no God especially a Muslim God. I chose to express a negative. I'm a nonbeliever. I look for no answers. I wasn't here, now I'm here and soon I won't be here again. The universe will be here for a length of time that might as well be forever. It won't matter to any of us.

You say you "have no idea" what Kalam is. Neither did I, but it took me about three minutes to find out, since I have the most powerful computer ever created at my fingertips at a moment's notice.
You remind me of people who profess not to know of crop circles, or reincarnation, or any number of things, but apparently certain of their nonexistence, when a few taps of the keyboard would enlighten them...are you REALLY that lazy, or willfully ignorant, or both?
I thought so.

@Storm1752 it isn't about lazy, it was about giving an answer based on the circumstances then existing, then after answering I look it up.

Was your typing to make all that worth it to do some unnecessary ?

@Storm1752 I like when people type "SP?" Just look it up...

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist. I see agnostic theist as the other side of the coin.

I am an atheist because I absolutely do not believe any gods exist, either inside or outside of our universe. There is simply no need to insert one.

I am agnostic because I accept that it is something that cannot be known (at least when it comes to some generic, creator, being that we would call a god). I cannot say "there is no god" because it will then be upon me to prove it...and I simply cannot do that--no one can. I can only provide evidence against the existence of specific gods--the Abrahamic god, for instance.

An agnostic theist is saying that they cannot say that they KNOW that there is a god (because just as I cannot KNOW there isn't, they cannot KNOW there is). But they believe there is, or most likely is, some kind of god/universal consciousness that is responsible for creating the universe.

Agnostic Atheist: I cannot know, but I don't believe there is a god of any kind.
Agnostic Theist: I cannot know, but I believe there is some sort of creator god.

@Joanne I think we are on the same page with the definitions and I think your admitting that we can't know for certain one way or the other is honest. I guess they call it faith for a reason. Maybe energy always existed or maybe there had to be some eternal first cause. IDK

@tactic8 To clarify: I see no reason whatsoever to think that any kind of god exists. I refer to Occam's Razor which basically states: when searching for answers, don't add anything that is not necessary. Or, in other words, the simpler explanation is usually the correct one.

Science shows us that there is no need to give energy a consciousness or call it a god--and especially no need to give it human attributes. This simply adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. But, as said above, this simply cannot be known; but why add something if it isn't necessary.

This said, I have no issues with anyone who believes in some sort of creator being. I lingered at deism for awhile on my way from believer to atheist. I only have a problem with those who claim to KNOW there is a god and go further and claim to KNOW the will of this being and then try to force their beliefs onto others. I also have a problem with those who put us all at risk because they put their beliefs above scientific facts.

Spock was so biblical. John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos, the logos was with God and was God.

I sincerely doubt that.
"For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain. If people need religion, ignore them and maybe they will ignore you, and you can go on with your life. It wasn't until I was beginning to do Star Trek that the subject of religion arose. What brought it up was that people were saying that I would have a chaplain on board the Enterprise. I replied, "No, we don't.” Gene Roddenberry

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful god, who creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes." Gene Roddenberry

For one would involve actually working where the other is daydreaming.

Yes, refocusing on doing real things that would improve the world is good advice. It seems that people at Agnostic. are embedded in the larger system of the world with it's beliefs and the non-believers are still defining themselves by a lack of belief in god(s)...enough Agnostic., anyway. Just trying find some like minded people. Here's some food for thought: Do you know what his major at university was?: "Bible"

@p-nullifidian....I've heard the argument that we don't know that time even existed before the big expansion, and a theist could argue that too...and that therefore the question " long had it existed in the nothingness of a non-existent universe?" may be...um...moot perhaps.

@tactic8 Indeed! I have heard this too. String theory branes aside, there seem to be at least three major camps: that time had a finite beginning, that time is infinitely linear, and that time is cyclical. Which, if any of these models, do you subscribe to?

I could care less about STYLE
I care about TRUTH

@AgnoBill...You have a problem with bald people?

You are mistaken. Man is a social creature and meant to live in groups. Evil is not inherent, empathy and care for others like us is.

@sterlingdean He spoke of evil and suffering... Put 5 people in a room for 1 week with no food. Then, put in 1 plate with food and see what happens. Sharing won't happen most likely. Man has always conquered and taken what he wants. History is filled with the stories.

It seems me that by your statement that you conclude that people who "admit" that there is no Supreme Being somehow have better understanding of why there are good and evil people in the world. How does admitting that there is no Supreme Being lead better understanding of why there are good and evil people in the world?

@tactic8 It is my opinion that people who want to believe that we were all created by some all seeing, all benevolent, all powerful being can't logically explain how such a being could create evil. Yes, it would have to be the creation of that being since, according to them, nothing existed before it. Without that problematic belief, you can understand that some people a. are out to get whatever they want regardless of who it hurts, b. Have power over others, and/or c. take pleasure in others' misery. You don't have to reconcile with that foolish remark about 'free will' that so many theists use.

I agree.
So that means either the universe just spontaneously (poof) came into being out of nothing, OR it's always been here.
I'd bet on the latter

His first point was good enough to convince the hypothesis doesn’t support a creator god. Thanks for sharing

Thank you for the affirmation Paul4747. I think the thing is that social conservatives have painted themselves into a corner and are now in a position where they feel the need to try to prove 70 years of accusations against gays correct. Some say the ship has already sailed on the LGBTQ+/GRSM thing but I think they still want to tell the world not to touch themselves based on a 2000 year old book with contradictions and a baby-killing god. It's enough to make me batshit at times; and that's a fact...or a psychologically constructed label; or both. Thanks again, and I guess I should be happy to consider myself wiser (at times) than the televangelists, as if that says much o_0.

A good way to put it. Also if there was a god, it would have to exist outside our Universe, for if it did not then we could not know what each individual is responsible for, or whether god did it. Therefore there is no free will, which we all know exists, otherwise, why have a consciousness, it would just make one aware of some bad thing coming without being able to do anything about it. A Universe is not needed unless there is a god who needs to spend his time playing with himself.