Editor’s Note: A New Day, A New Comment System

I think you need to put the comment form under the comments. =/

Ok I'll bite, I have now registered with Disqus (reluctantly) and will continue my love affair with FSR. I appreciate very much both bringing it up here and replying to my email as it shows a great deal of respect for your readers. Anyway in a months time it'll all be forgotten so my dream to write for FSR shall continue on haha.

I have yet to officially register, but this certainly came at an inconvenient time for the two of us.

As to the 'teapot' analogy, it's a good point, but at the same time I see this as a slightly different matter. What we have is existence. We can take all the evidence we want for existence, sum it, ponder it, and come up with a conclusion, but that conclusion is based solely on our reaction to the evidence we see. The evidence doesn't support the existence/nonexistence of a creator, it just supports existence. So we take existence, and we self-reflect to determine why we it existence, well, exists. For me, I cannot logically think that there was nothing, then a superdense substance appeared, blew up, and formed everything. It had to come from something. I don't know if that something is necessarily an omnipotent being, a previous universe, or some strange sole member of a race doing a science project. But if it's of the latter two, where did they come from? Is there an infinite regress of universe starting over and over again? That notion seems impossible to me, outside of the natural, which makes me believe in some sort of creator.
There's no way, no observation, that could lead to somebody believing a teapot was orbiting the sun. But for a creator, some people look at existence and surmise someone made it. As I've said, who knows if people have gotten anywhere close to the truth. And I will absolutely agree with you that many religious people have more faith than logic, and believe in the impossible and remain in ignorance. What I hope I have done is shown that there is a logical way to think about it as well, and shown that it is just a matter of personal philosophy, ultimately unprovable and only answered within one's self.

This is indeed a good debate. And I am from the states actually. You?

Alright, logged in.

Well yes the teapot analogy is ridiculous but it's really supposed to be, but my contention is that a creator is just as unfathomable.

I'm not saying that there was nothing though not at all. I will attempt to get all existential and come up with a theory of my own though. For us to say it 'had' to come from something is just us being stuck in our own landscape of thought which is that everything that exists has a beginning a middle and an end which may not be the case. I feel time is somewhat like a figure of eight in that it never ends and appears to start nowhere. We can't say definitively time starts at this point (we may at some point?) so possibly we are existing in a set of circumstances that are infinite.

Tangent time - I compare it to time travel, some say this is something that may be possible in the future while my hypothesis is that it will never and can never happen because if it was invented in the future then people would have come back. It wouldn't be invented and then instantly everyone would have set regulations (much like when radioactivity was discovered and people used it in soap and then they started dying) So I would say time is not permeable (even if back to the future is awesome).

Wow waaaay off topic but its leads me back to my point which is that we don't know there was a start never mind that something created the start (And then who created the creator? Would you say he just was? And then why couldn't we be?) I'm running in circles though so shall wrap up this comment and await your response.

I am just a 19 year old from Scotland (which would have some say I have no right have my say because I'm too young but I prefer not to hide behind facades on the internet (although I understand why some do)). (And I'll give up brackets after this comment)(.)

I don't mean ridiculous, I mean unfitting. There is absolutely no evidence to claim a tea pot circles the moon. There is evidence some people use to say there exists a creator (that is, there is existence), but evidence you say points to no such conclusion. Both sides look at the evidence (existence) and decide for themselves what to make of it. If someone believe in the orbiting tea pot, he wouldn't be basing it on observation, he would just be making a claim. It's like the religious fanatics who claim that the earth is 6000 years old. Not only is there no evidence for it, there's loads of evidence against it, but they still make the claim. At least the idea of a creator stems from something.

Time is a tricky little phenomena as well. But if the universe is infinite in space-time, if the shape of the universe is a 10-dimensional sphere (I believe 10 is the current popular number), perhaps we exist in a complex loop. Time is a different, also awesome, topic, and Back to the Future is a fantastic movie.

We don't know there was a start, perhaps. But here's my question: why is an infinite regress of space and time, or of universes, or of different existences, that much easier or that much more logical than an infinite creator? I have a lot of trouble believing that existence just is. I don't think it was possible for it to have spawned from nothing. And if I'm going to believe it came from an infinite regress or previous existences, I might as well believe in an infinite being who created it/them all. My problem with infinity, particular an 'infinite existence' is that it exceeds the natural. So you're question 'who created the creator' is not important, since he/it is of the supernatural and never needed to be created. Existence however, can only be natural, and in my mind, needed to be created. We know our existence began at the Big Bang. That is when our physical laws were imbedded, when time took the structure that it did. Before that, we have no idea, but I don't think it came from nothing, and I don't think there was an infinite
What if the infinite regress is itself the creator, or what if the nature of infinity is the divine?

I'm 21, so we're both pretty young here. But I will say I've always wanted to go to Scotland.

A) I'd like to see the evidence, And B) I personally wouldn't have went for the teapot but Russell did so that's what us atheists are stuck with to say.

And infinite regress of space and time and such is very much harder to explain which is why I think it is more likely. It's waaaay to easy to say 'God done it' which is why we have done so for many, many years. I think that what I have spun out is something few think of as it is very 'brain-hurty'. However I'm aware someone could say that God made this huge infinite time space thing we live in but I would say that defeats the purpose. Also I know that saying it 'just is' isn't fair but it's akin to 'God did it'.

What I'm purporting doesn't include any 'spawning' at all it is infinite, or could be anyway. And I'm aware it exceeds the natural but so does God? As far as supernatural I don't believe in anything of the supernatural. My idea of an infinite time scale is not supernatural as we are not fully aware of what time is. Whose to say there wasn't a time before our time? I will never subscribe to a view of the divine though as it requires that little leap that in my mind leads to Ghosts, Monsters and yes, Loch Ness Monsters lol I know that isn't the argument I'm just saying in my head all physical laws would have to be cast aside for me to 'believe'.

I should state why I don't believe as otherwise I'm just a raving lunatic who attacks others religion. I would like religion to be gone because it is the cause of just about every war in our existence and has caused huge human damage. Now I know not every religious person is a nut, but every nut seems to be religious. So while some may be helped by religion too many use it as an excuse to bring great harm upon others and that just makes me boil.

Scotland is pretty amazing but zing the bad parts aren't even nearly what those outside imagine. Not that it's bad just that I stayed with an American last year who was shocked at the lack of bagpipes and Kilts lol I have visited America myself three times but always to oldsville USA, Florida.

The evidence is existence itself. People look at existence and think it had to he created, hence a creator. You interpret the evidence differently, but they do have a basis.

Haha, I never thought I'd be using Occam's razor here, so dare I? With multiple options, the simplest is usually correct. I'm kind of joking, because I think a lot of people would say it's simpler to not have God. And as to you're last sentence, "saying 'it just is' isn't fair but it's akin to saying 'God did it,'" is exactly my point. They are both personal philosophies, each one requiring some sort of unprovable faith. An infinite universe is 'brain hurty,' but so is an infinite creator, most people just choose not to think about it.

Yes, an infinite existence does exceed the natural, and yes so does God. That's why I find the creator to be a more logical choice, because a being outside of nature (supernatural) could span infinity, while I don't see how existence, which is rooted in the natural, could do such a thing. As for the substance of time, and 'times before our time,' both are fair questions. For all we know, if there were previous existences they're physical laws were drastically different, perhaps there wasn't even 'time.' But I still have trouble believing that to 'just be,' as you put it.

There have been gross atrocities committed, throughout time, in the name of religion. It has shed more blood than anything else, I'd imagine. But I doubt all wars would cease if religion were lifted away. Particularly because, though wars were done in religious names, they were done for political reasons. I think South Park did this argument best. Ending war is more than just ending religion.

Religion in the large scale, huge churches where one person guides the thoughts of everybody else, masses of people of think it's fine to fly planes into buildings or wish to exterminate an entire race, are huge black spots on the face of religion. But on a personal level, on the small scale, religion has done some great things. If it brings a victim of rape solace, if it drives someone to see worth in life, it has done good as well.

What bothers me is the ignorance, scientifically and socially, that comes with many religious people. Those that claim evolution as a farce, or that the earth is 6000 years young, these people are doing what religion has also done for far too long: hindering scientific progress. But regardless of these glaring faults, this should not prevent you from seeing the possibility of a creator. You don't have to be religious to think there was one, but don't let idiots who use religion badly tarnish your vision too strongly. Not that it has, you've clearly thought a lot about your atheistic views, but atheism should not be based on anti-religion, atheism is based on a different interpretation of the evidence of existence, and finding a personal philosophy that tells you there is no creator.

Wait, not everybody in Scotland wears kilts and plays bagpipes? Everything I even believed is a lie!

I would say that God is an answer while the infinite universe idea (which I kind of made up with no backup research so in no way should that be considered a reputable theory) is a question. Therefore it doesn't require faith as I am just putting out ideas that are within possibility.

Existence however is rooted in what we see and since we can't see time it actually exceeds the natural. I mean I can say it's 17.08 but that is looking at time as we have decided.

I'm not saying that no God equals no war. But just imagine a world with no God. What are people fighting about?

I have countless times seen how small scale religion has helped people through unbelievable hardship and while it's not an easy thing to say I feel that the scales still don't even out. So I would sacrifice the small scale help for the large scale atrocities.

I very much see where your coming from about other religious people (And frankly if you were one of them your first reply would've been that I was going to hell). I would like to know what the percentages were like because I fear that there may be more zealots than even headed people. Most should treat the bible like a story book with nice messages but too many take it literally.

Personally my country is ravaged by bigotry and hate drawn across the lines of football teams, whereby if you support Rangers you are a protestant and Celtic a catholic so just wearing my chosen teams strip can cause me to be attacked if I'm in the 'wrong' area. This angers me so much and as such I have been a vocal atheist since age 6 and have been kicked out of ever Religious Education class I took for being 'too cynical'. But taking away someones peace of mind isn't my aim.

Wait, you want to write for FSR?

Drop me an email, man.