OK! Just did not like the experiment/analogy. Makes most atheists like myself, look stupid!
So:
a. I am an atheist.
b. Please read up on advanced Physics (anti-matter, anti-energy).
c. If I was a theist asshole, I could have said, measure all three jars to 50 significant digits, and you would see that they would all be different. Proving, the supernatural asshole did have a role.
Moral of the story: No amount of convincing would work on a brainwashed brain! Lets work on ending brainwashing!
Thanks to science the gaps god can hide in are getting fewer and smaller all the time. In the future god will be left to reside in mythology and it's believers will become irrelevant and simply an amusing remnant.
@scotttebben - Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Anytime science comes to a greater understanding of something (e.g. DNA) these religious conjurers simply invent a new argument that piggy-backs on the findings of science -- e.g, "DNA coding just proves that the Deity was more brilliant than we previously thought!"
atheists are the one who have the burden of proof because WE EXIST, ..... and we are intelligent... and personal..... and capable of knowing what`s right and what`s wrong... If atheists are right, then murdering is not wrong , murdering will be another word for "surviving"
@mjmenjivar Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theist claims. Atheism doesn't make any claims & it doesn't condone murder. Theists have the burden of proof because theists ASSert a god exists. Therefor Theists are required to form a RATIONAL ARGUMENT by DEFINING their god in specific terms & presenting EVIDENCE not scripture to support their ASSertion that a god exists. Is this too difficult for You to understand ?
I will not say u have to accept any religion but I said we are smart enough to see that this universe, the world and us, are designe.Impossible to exist "by Chance" I know u will call it "natural selection" but it´s just your other "word" to say "chance" because that´s what it is
If u find a computer in the middle of a desert your logic will NOT say "natural selection" made this computer, logic will say it was created and left there,maybe you don´t know who but u can´t deny it
@mjmenjivar We know computers are designed. They don't occur naturally. We don't know if the Universe or the World was designed. People are the result of Evolution. We're not designed. Natural Selection has nothing to do with the Universe. It's a process which occurs over time & allows desirable traits in Species to be passed on to future generations.
ASSuming? I am using Logic and reason, Common sense. If you ASSume that nothing designed us, then the problem is yours because science has showed us the universe had a begining and if all what exists begun many billions years ago, and it is billion times more complex than a computer, just need logic and common sense to know there must be a designer
Who design the designer? It doesn´t matter if we know it or not, that will never means "there for the designer doesn´t exists"
@mjmenjivar Logic WITHOUT EVIDENCE is nothing more than a logical fallacy. I'm not ASSuming anything. You are. You're unable to define Your designer in specific terms nor present any evidence to support Your ASSumption & You're concluding a Designer must have created the Universe. That's an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE ! Not all Scientific Theories fully explain all Natural Phenomena. However they're supported with Evidence & continual testing. Ignorance & a lack of Evidence supports Your ASSumption.
You're STUPID to ASSert Atheism condones Murder. Atheism has no tenets. You don't have to accept Scientific Theories to be considered an Atheist. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theist claims.
mmmmm I am stupid for that? So, it will be fine with you if I rape and kill your doughter, or your mom, or your closest friend ?? (assuming you have). I see your point... you prefer not beieving there ismorality or justice, because then you have nothign to worry.
I have learnd that MORALITY is the reasong why most of Atheist today axist, because if there is a creator, at the end, there will be justice... I don´t care you call me stupid or insult me,,
@mjmenjivar Everyone has their own morality. I said You're stupid to ASSert Atheism condones murder. Obviously You don't understand the meaning of Atheism. It's nothing more than the rejection of theist claims. Since when does ANYONE need to believe in a divine creator to be Moral ? This isn't an insult but If You think only people who believe in a divine creator are moral then You're STUPID & CRAZY !
I never said and will never said you need to believe in a creator to be moral.. and if for you I don´t understand Atheisms,, I can say the same about you on thesits.. and I CAN prove it and you don´t.
So, what I see is that you see the point of reason and logic, and you have not argument against it, so you prefer to start insulting me,, easy way out.. call me ignorant, I don´t care, call me crazy and stupid, i don´t care, it just shows I am right about you..
@mjmenjivar You said Atheism condones murder & that is a STUPID claim. I also asked You to define your god in specific terms & present evidence to support its' existence. You haven't done either. I think it is STUPID for You to worship something which You can't even define nor present any evidence to support its' existence. I also told Your ASSumption/claim is logic which isn't supported with evidence & amounts to nothing more than a logical fallacy.
You are just ignoring what I said. I haven´t make a case for any especific religion or god,, I can make a case for cristianity because I am, but I never mentioned that, that is for a talk between a theist vs a theist, nor a talk between theist vs an atheist. get me?
If you use what you call "critical thinking" you will admit there must be an "Intelligence" that designed us. Stupid critial thinking will be "we are here "by chance" (natural selection if you want) get it ?
@mjmenjivar All you're doing is ASSuming a designer exists. You can't present ANY evidence to support Your ASSumption. That is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. I reject ALL theist claims especially the christian god. Instead of ASSerting, Try presenting a RATIONAL ARGUMENT to support your god's existence instead of ASSuming it exists. Begin by DEFINING your god in specific terms & present EVIDENCE not scripture, logical fallacies or Arguments from Ignorance to support Your ASSumption. GET IT ?
@mjmenjivar I understand theism. It's belief in a deity. In Your case it's a deity which You can't define nor present any evidence to support. You belief is based on willful ignorance & faith NOT evidence. Faith is the excuse You have to believe when You don't have evidence or in the presence of contradictory evidence. The difference between us is I choose to Question claims until they're supported with sufficient evidence. You choose to believe the claims You want to believe.
@mjmenjivar I don't understand theism ? Guess WHAT ? I attended roman catholic elementary school. Attended daily religious class & bible study from K to 8th. grade. Served as an Altar Boy. Whenever I asked teachers or priests to present a rational argument to support the existence of their god. They couldn't. Like You, their belief was based on Willful Ignorance & faith. STOP ASSuming what I know about theism. Learn HOW to QUESTION instead of ASSuming my friend !
@mjmenjivar I'm still waiting for You to DEFINE your god in specific terms & present EVIDENCE to support your ASSumption. What's the matter ? Are You afraid of making a FOOL of Yourself ? You ASSume because We don't have an explanation for all Natural Phenomena a designer MUST be the cause. That's not an example of Critical Thinking. It's an ASSertion supported with Ignorance & a lack of evidence. GET IT ?
yeah yeah, I´m ignorant and you are not,, that´s always the claim of atheists... I am not makeing a case for any "god" or "religion" GET IT ? or you are smart enough to get it? I am making a case for logic and reason for existance
A computer is found in a desert and I say "this computer was designed and left here" I dont care WHO created it, but I KNOW it was designed and left.That´s ignorance from me or from you that deny this TRUTH?
@mjmenjivar Existence needs to be demonstrated & supported with EVIDENCE not with logical fallacies. We're not talking about a computer because We know computers are designed. We're talking about the Universe, Earth & People. We have not demonstrated nor do We have EVIDENCE to support Your ASSumption that any of these were designed. When You ASSume You're not thinking critically.
@tranquility4all The computer is billion times more complex than a computer that you KNOW is designed... GET IT ?? or do I have to be more clear?
If you find the computer in the desert, do you NEED to see the people who designed it, how he look, what he/she/it eats, to KNOW that computer was designed? GET IT ?
USE YOUR "THINKING" my friend
Science showed us that the Universe is billion times more complex than a computer.
Use your "thinking" if you claim to be a "thinker"
THE FACT IS that when u start to insult, it is because u`r uncapable of building any argument against "Logic and Reason".The FACT IS that u clame to be "Critical thinker" but to find words of insulting. The FACT IS that u believe in science that proves its theory base on the "EFECTS" not in the REAL EVIDENCE, that`s why there are lots of "THEORIES" about the beggining of the Universe,all guessing, and base on "EFECTS". and I present the efects as evidence of the designer u deny
@mjmenjivar I'm not insulting You. I'm pointing out the FACT that a logical argument without evidence amounts to nothing more than a LOGICAL FALLACY. You're STUPID if You think Scientific Theories are NOT supported with EVIDENCE & CONTINUAL TESTING. They're not perfect. However they're the best explanation We have for EXPLAINING NATURAL PHENOMENA. What facts, Evidence & testing methodology supports Your ASSumption that the Universe, Earth & People are designed ?
@mjmenjivar Example: I have a safe which is 2 feet high, 2 feet wide & 2 feet deep. I can logically conclude what MIGHT be in the Safe (a pen, wallet, golf ball etc.). However I can never PROVE if anything is inside the Safe unless I open the Safe. However I can logically conclude what CAN'T be inside the Safe. If someone claimed a Live Full grown Elephant was inside the Safe I can logically conclude it isn't. GET IT ? Logic without evidence can't prove a claim or the existence of a designer.
@mjmenjivar You keep referring to design. If You find a pile of DUNG lying in the dirt is this proof that a designer exists ? Can You give me an example of something that isn't designed ? Obviously You need to read about the Scientific Method. It isn't perfect. However it's the best method We have for discerning Truth & explaining Natural Phenomena. You have a deluded method for discerning truth.
@mjmenjivar You're lacking in Critical Thinking skills. I'll leave You with something to THINK about.
Education is a never ending process. It's a Person progressing from COCKSURE IGNORANCE to Thoughtful Uncertainty.
You are filled with COCKSURE IGNORANCE because You ASSert Origins of Natural Phenomena which lack an Explanation MUST be designed & therefor a creator/god MUST exist.
Logical Fallacies don't explain. They comfort Willfully Ignorant People like You who refuse to engage in research.
My friend, if a statue wave at you and start to talk and say to you "there is a creator" you will NOT believe in a creator, you will find an "explanation" why that happen. You know why? because you don´t want to believe. You dont care about TRUTH
USE your "critical thinking" my friend. You can call me ignorant, I don´t care. I can know the same or more than u about science and I don´t presume to be better than you as you do
@mjmenjivar When did a statue speak to You ? Is this the reason You believe a creator exists ? The difference between us is I believe claims which are supported with EVIDENCE & You believe what You WANT to believe. I'm not presuming to be better than anybody. I'm saying I rely on critical thinking & You don't. Here'[s something for You to THINK about. Logic without evidence doesn't support a claim. However Logic can refute a claim.
@mjmenjivar It's time for You to wake up & free yourself from the shackles of your faith. I rely on evidence to support claims. You don't. You can't even define in specific terms the god You worship nor present ANY evidence to support its' existence. If You're not going to attempt to present a RATIONAL ARGUMENT to support Your belief. Don't bother replying.
I've wasted enough time reading Your mindless dribble.
@mjmenjivar Your talking statue scenario is LUDICROUS. However If 5 Chimpanzees waved to You & said there is NO creator. Would You believe them ? Or would You ASSume Your god is testing Your faith? Or would You begin to question the existence of a creator ? Seriously, Try presenting a better scenario than talking statues. Logical fallacies are poor reasons to ASSert existence. But talking statues ? Come On ! I expect more even from an Irrational theist.
The talking statue is to sho you how fundamentalist atheist you are my friend... you will not believe no matter how much evidence anyone can bring.
Like it or not, the effects claim for a cause (this is science in case you dont know) Science says there was a BigBang at the biggining. How they know if no one saw it? because they look at the Effects as EVIDENCE of that big explotion. Studiyng the EFFECTS they conclude their explanation. Same with a Creator my friend
@mjmenjivar You haven't presented any evidence nor have You defined in specific terms the god You worship. Scientists who accept the Big Bang do so because they have evidence which supports it. You don't have any evidence of a creator that designed the Universe, Earth or People. Existence is not evidence of design. Was every pile of SHIT designed ? The only fundamentalist here is YOU. You accept something for which You can't define nor present any evidence to support.
1.) You wish to hear from me a "definition" of a designer to start insulting me, no my friend, I am not giving you any definition. I see you don´t get it yet
2.) Evidence?Science proved the Universe had a beggining. Something or someone started it. In order to know what started it, we see the Evidence. IN the Unverse there are Time, Matter, Power, Technique, Intelligence, Life, Love, Evel, we are Personal, etc.. whatever started the Universe has to have and go beyond all that
@mjmenjivar How can I attempt to understand Your definition of the creator You worship if You won't define it in specific terms ? STOP ASSuming what I will or won't understand until You present it. Nobody has ever proved the Universe was created or that it has always existed. Stop trying to make SHIT up. Time, Matter, Space, Intelligence, Life, Love, Evil etc. don't prove the existence of a divine creator. We are personal. SO WHAT ? Individuality does not prove the existence of a divine creator.
@mjmenjivar IF the Universe was created Tell me WHAT created the creator of the Universe. You stated You logically concluded (ASSumed) the Universe was designed then You MUST also ASSume the designer of the Universe was designed. Then You must also ASSume the designer who designed the designer of the Universe was also designed & so on & so on. HOWEVER You haven't defined any of these designers in specific terms nor presented any evidence to support their existence. GET IT ?
@mjmenjivar Just because we study the Effects doesn't mean We discovered the Cause. Example: We live on Planet earth & we have studied the Planet. It doesn't mean We discovered the Cause of the Planet nor does it confirm the existence of a divine creator. WQe also study the effects of many Diseases & Natural Phenomena. However We haven't discovered with absolute certainty the cause of all Diseases & Natural Phenomena.
@mjmenjivar It's time for You to STOP ASSuming & try presenting a RATIONAL ARGUMENT instead of a logical fallacy to support Your claim. If You can accept something with a logical fallacy or without evidence, Then Anyone can refute It with a logical fallacy or without evidence. However IF You can define Your premise in specific terms & present sufficient EVIDENCE to support It then It stands a good chance to be accepted by Rational People.
@mjmenjivar You ASSume You KNOW with absolute certainty a divine creator designed the Universe. However You can't define You god in specific terms nor present ANY evidence to support Your ASSumption except a logical fallacy. Guess What ? Logical fallacies don't prove your claim /belief. Sufficient evidence might.
My friend, in all what I have read from you in this comments, you are the one who have been ASSuming
I haven´t mentione a "divine creator" it is you who mentioned it, so don´t fool yourself
What I see is that you don´t know you are real, neither the universe is real for you.
What created the designer? hum, that´s what Dawking asked in his book. "smartest" question ever for u right? For us, rational people, it is the fooliest question ever that was EASY answered and u know it
@mjmenjivar Who is Dawking ? If You're referring to Steven Hawking or Richard Dawkins You'll be interested to know I haven't read any book by either of these 2 people. STOP ASSuming what I read. You don't examine ANYTHING, You ASSume. I know the Universe & myself both exist & therefor I know both are REAL. What IDIOCY are You babbling about now ? Im the 1 ASSuming ? What claim have I presented ? I haven't presented any claim nor ASSumed ANY cause. I'm rejecting Your ASSumption/claim. GET IT ?
If u havent´t read StevenHawking, go read it and according with his research tell me if we EXIST (as u say we do) "by chance" ("by chance"="Natural selection" if you wish) or we must be designed because of the evidence THAT WE EXIST?
If you don´t believe we are "designed" you believe we are here "by chance", there is no more options
You deny we are desinged, you ASSumption=we EXIST "by chance", I deny we are here "by chance" and "critical thinking" gives me the reason GET IT?
@mjmenjivar The overwhelming Scientific Community accepts NATURAL SELECTION. They don't refer to it as chance. We are the result of a never ending process known as EVOLUTION thru Natural Selection not chance or design. Desirable traits are inherited by future generations to help it continually adapt over time. We have EVIDENCE & Continual Testing which supports EVOLUTION. What Evidence & testing methodology supports Your ASSumption that We were designed ?
@mjmenjivar Critical Thinking supports Your ASSumption of design ? NO It doesn't. What evidence & testing methodology supports Your ASSumption ? What Peer review Scientific study organization accepts Your ASSumption ? Why isn't there a theory of design accepted by the Scientific Community ?
1.) As I said, u can called it "natural selection" I don´t care, it is just another word to say "by chance", atheist use this word to IMPRESS
2.) Universe has 2 options for its existance
Designed or "by chance"
If u don´t take one, you take to other one. If you say to me it is not designed, you embrase "by chance"
"Critical thinking" tells me that EVOLUTION just shows we are designed because for EVILUTION to happen, you really need what I will call a "miracle" not "chance"
@mjmenjivar You keep ASSerting design is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe & all forms of Life. Now You ASSert Evolution is proof People are designed. Instead of ASSerting Your ASSumptions WHY DON'T YOU PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. Then explain WHY the Scientific Community DOESN'T accept a theory of design & explain Why the Scientific Community doesn't accept Your hypothesis that Evolution is proof of design. STOP ASSerting & Start presenting EVIDENCE !
1)Must scientist believe there is a designer. Science,as it is, don´t care if there is a designer or not, science justs have to continue working in HOW the Universe works, and research for medicine for deseases
2) Designed is THE BEST EXPLANATION for the Universe existance.There are just 2 optiones, "Chance" or "Designed". If you dont know which one it is, then STUDY THE UNIVERSE, evolution, Physics and tell me which is more probable ACCORDING WITH WHAT YOU CAN SEE IN UNIVERSE
@mjmenjivar DON'T bother replying because You will just continue to ASSert "It MUST be" as an explanation for anything. You're unable or unwilling to engage in CRITICAL THINKING & You're too stupid to form a RATIONAL ARGUMENT. I've wasted too much time with You. It's obvious You choose to believe what You want to believe because It makes You feel good & You're also unwilling or unable to critically examine ANYTHING.
@mjmenjivar You keep stating Unproven ASSertions to support previous Unproven ASSertions. Your ASSertion "It MUST be" isn't evidence & it doesn't prove ANYTHING. What You MUST do is present a RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Begin by DEFINING Your claim in SPECIFIC terms & PRESENT EVIDENCE to support It. So far EVERYTHING You've posited about design hasn't been accepted by ANY Scientific Peer Review Organization.
Instead of ASSerting MUST be, start saying MAYBE & try presenting EVIDENCE.
@mjmenjivar I'm not going to re read all your comments. You didn't say a divine creator designed the Universe. Fine. Then answer my original Question. WHAT designed the Universe ? You also stated WHAT created the designer is an easy Question to answer. Then Why haven't You Answered this Question ? You're absolutely certain the Universe is designed. However You can't answer ANY questions about WHAT designed the Universe nor WHAT created the designer of the Universe. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T GET IT !
@mjmenjivar The Scientific Community does not accept the hypothesis of design. It has never passed Peer Review because it is a load of BULL SHIT & It isn't supported with ANY Evidence or testing. For You Information Evolution doesn't explain the origins of Life. I suggest You read about the Scientific Method, Abiogenisis & Evolution. Please present ANY verifiable Scientific Peer Review study which accepts design as the cause of the Universe & all life forms on Earth.
@mjmenjivar If You think Your ASSumption of design is a valid explanation for the Origin of the Universe & all Life forms on Earth. Then Why don't You submit it for Peer Review by any Universally recognized Scientific Organization ( NOT the discovery institute or any organization which endorses creationism ) & see if They agree with Your ASSumption ? You will give them a good laugh & maybe You will finally understand what is required for claims to be accepted as the best possible explanation.
@mjmenjivar Whatever started MUST be designed ? Was every Hurricane, & Volcanic Eruption designed ? Was every pile of SHIT designed ? Can You give me an example of something which wasn't designed ? Is it STUPID to ask for a physical test from an unphysical, timeless & spaceless entity ? What are You referring to ? You keep ASSerting whatever started MUST be an Unphysical spaceless timeless entity because all that started in the beginning. The beginning of WHAT ?
@mjmenjivar AND You still haven't explained WHAT designed the designer of the Universe. AND You haven't presented ANY Evidence to prove WHATEVER designed the Universe also designed ALL Life Forms. AND You haven't explained WHAT designed the designer that designed the Universe & ALL Life Forms. & so on & so on.
Just Positing "It MUST be" doesn't EXPLAIN ANYTHING. GET IT ?
Your abundance of Willful Ignorance complements Your excess of Stupidity !
@mjmenjivar Who cares HOW complex a computer is . We know they are designed. We don't have evidence to support Your ASSumption that the Universe, Earth or People were designed. The Scientific Method helped design computers. It didn't present a Theory which passed Peer Review supporting the existence of a Designer. Is this too difficult for You to understand You brain dead IDIOT ?
@mjmenjivar You ASSert that if You discover something & can't explain its' origin It MUST be the result of as designer. That is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Evidence supports the premise. You have it ASS BACKWARDS. You think the premise supports the evidence. When WE don't have an explanation for Natural Phenomena It doesn't mean a designer/god/creator is the cause. You're CONFUSED & substituting a computer for something that occurs Naturally.
@mjmenjivar Based on Your DISTORTED logic. The first time You saw a Volcano erupt or witnessed a Hurricane, Glacier or ANY Natural Phenomena including the Sun & the Moon rising or a Pile of DUNG. You would ASSert It MUST be designed. Existence isn't necessarily evidence of design.This is why Your logic is filled with more Holes than a Fishing Net. You seriously need to learn How Critically examine things instead of ASSerting Your Unsupported Logical Fallacies.
@mjmenjivar Now try & explain to me what evidence & testing supports Your ASSumption that a creator designed the Universe, Earth & People.Then explain to me WHAT designed the creator of the Universe, Earth & People. You need to STOP ASSerting & ASSuming claims & Start engaging in Critical Thinking & learn How to Question claims instead of ASSuming & ASSerting them.
What the supernatural may be is simply a higher resonance of reality, which are vibrations beyond the normal sensitivity of our perception or even beyond what our instruments, i.e. large hadron collider, can detect. The brain is like an organic antenna attuned to this reality, but as quantum physicists will say, we've decohered from perhaps infinite realities that exist everywhere simultaneously. However, if you meditate or take a psychedelic, then suddenly these boundaries dissolve temporarily.
Because they really believe that this physical world is all there is...and when they die, that's it. How limiting a belief system....and how sad..for them.
@fbwill88 - yeah. Reality sucks don't it? So might as well make the most of this life while we each have one and stop fucking around with ancient superstitions.
@fbwill88 If you want to look at a REALLY limited belief system....... just choose any religion. I think it's sad that RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are the limited ones...... and they don't even realize it.
To answer their question of 'what is real' I say they both must admit we have things that happen in this planet in which we have no earthly explanation for. Like why asteroids fall? Who tells the flower what exact day to bloom on? How do dome people clinically die for 45 minutes or longer...and then come back to life? So to deny what we do not understand, simply because we don't have words for it or because we can't explain it in our human concepts...makes me sad for them.
Like the word existence..hee...hee. They imply...'look, this is what existence is...and since you can't differentiate 'supernatural & none' in these terms..then all things God don't exist. It never occurs to them...that perhaps our limited human words for what God is (such as exist or nonexist) , is the problem....but it must be the concept of God.
I also crack up at how humans get caught on our language and use of words. Like if a phenomenon doesn't fit into our limited human language, then it cannot be the word/or the way we see it, that is wrong....it must be the phenomenon.
I feel bad for the two people on the video. Because she lives only by her 5 senses...what she can see, hear, touch, feel..etc. to say 'if I can't see it then it must not be real' is ludicrous. There are lots of things we don't see but we know scientifically that it works....like prayer and miraculous healing.
If you are defining "BE" as "EXIST", infinity doesn't exist. All you have to do is take something that does exist, like water, and say it both exists and is infinite. If that is the case, then NOTHING exists except water because you just defined it as both existing and infinite, which means that nothing is outside of it and it is everything AND every "PART" of it is infinite. That just doesn't work if observed reality exists, where finite things exist, where things NOT water (god) exist.
so for something to exist it has to be seen, make sounds, have weight? Tracie's example is just moronic!!! All you're doing is playing silly games twisting semantics about something you yourself have no idea about. There is non-material mathematically proven substances in Quantum Physics ... thats so sorry that people limit existence to the physical realm. Big ol FAIL w/ this video.
@snbeings Agreed............ the can't taste it touch blah blah so it doesn't exist. I think she is trying to be clever and re-invent the wheel. Bertrund Russells teapot is a much better analogy. The problem is can it be proven/disproven not what seems likely/unlikely. In order for the analogy to "God" be made it has to be impossible to refute, as is the teapot.
@snbeings not in order to exist, but in order for us to be able to be justified in our claim that it exists. If something has absolutely no effect then it is impossible to distinguish from something that does not exist. Can it still exist? Sure but nobody should be claiming anything about it.
I suppose you are talking about dark matter and energy, but maybe you mean something else. Either way it has somehow manifested, because on physical things relying methods have proven them to exist.
Why not claim anything about? The God deal is simple ..... Some investigate if God is true and eventually come to a direct experience of such Infinite Being. (TAG argument) While others merely speculate that it is impossible and therefore no further investigation is necessary, and then attack from limited understanding, a mere mental speculation.
@snbeings the trancedental argument for god has nothing to do with experience. It is a logical argument. Now you're saying people have experienced an infinite being. I take it you are one of them, but I am not. If you're claiming direct experience is crucial in your conviction of its existance, then you are also saying that without that experience, you wouldn't and shouldn't be convinced. My question is, do you need to already believe before you can get the personal experience?
well then let me modify a version of Tag as "TAG from direct experience!" Direct experience of God is not crucial to the existence of God, as God is what God is regardless of experience, belief, non-belief. You dont need to believe to have the experience, but should at least acknowledge the possibility before approaching said Being. Withholding all judgments/biases until all avenues are explored. This not some dude on a cloud with a Beard, but more so and Infinite Beingness
@snbeings I agree that the existance/lack there of is not dependant on our experience of it.
You obviously believe the claim that God exists. I can't tell just yet what attributes beside infinity you ascribe to it, but you seem to have come to accept this claim based on personal experience. Do you agree then, that if someone does not have any such experience, that they then aren't justified in their belief in God.
Just to be clear, not believing god is not the same as believing there are no gods
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
But if I have never had such an experience, how can you expect someone to believe?
The answer I have received from many people, in Abrahamic religions is that I got an experience but just didn't understand it...which defeats the purpose of a belief changing experience
In a sense, doubt is justifiable. However hardlined skepticism can imprison you. I approcahed God as a possibility and saw that it is possible to experience God. So I followed certain blueprints, and had the experience which was undeniable because it was prior to Thought, to the mind, more real than anything I've ever experienced. It's hard to understand the experience of God because it is Unlimted and the mind is limited. Descriptions wont do justice to the real experience itself.
That doesn't say anything. You're just saying that you were open to experiencing God, and I say that I am looking for evidence, not some feeling. You cannot prove anything other than a felling you had, which could be anything. Therefore there is no reason to believe unless I have direct proof, not just some feeling. No matter how I feel, that doesn't prove a God.
The experience is evidence. It is not some feeling, for it is prior to; feeling, thought, emotions, existence. It is experienced as the underlying principle and 1st cause of all things. You want proof but your version of proof has limited confines and rules. You can't fit the Unlimited into that! Science doesn't look for God, Mystics do, and they are all in agreement. He exists and can be experienced. You are looking for physical proof of Infinity! Its all around you and in U
For something to exist it has to been shown to have an effect on the material world. At least something that can be proven scientifically. We have no idea what this 'God' you speak of is, so we look for evidence. If no evidence that can be shown to be actual evidence, as in an effect on something...then we can't believe. Or at least I can't believe. The example is showing that those things that are invisible can be demonstrated in the physical world. God cannot.
@humansaretheworld The bible is philosophy based. You say these things knowing its true because it IS true but only in the philosophical context not the material context. Even though you LIVE in the material world, you are thinking and speaking in a philosophical way. Most people that oppose you dont think philosophically on a daily basis the way you do.
@talover30 I do live in a world of ideas and need to know how the world works. Strict physical empiricism does not work for me because it leaves the world of the mind out of the picture. Biblical literalism seems related to strict empiricism in that it demands that its' spiritual stories be physical realities.
@humansaretheworld I understand the need to know these things through biblical literalism that could provide you with a more positive answer because it makes you feel better about these big questions that humans have. I am satisfied with not knowing until evidence via science proves otherwise. To me there is no need to provide a belief in a god to fill the gaps that we cannot explain. The world of the mind has different mindsets to it. Yours just takes the role of a philosophical one.
@talover30 I have never seen the need to complicate the world with a god as the world seems natural to me and a god telling the world what to do would really complicate the world.
@talover30 I am saying that I consider a person's god to be a mental concept. I think that the Christian basis for creation is a concept. "In the beginning was the logos" where logos can be translated as thought or idea. God conceived the world and it materialized according to christians.
@talover30 One reason I said god is a concept is that god has all of these idealized attributes that don't exist in the real world that we can barely imagine so we assign them to the supernatural.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, yet chooses to stay within the supernatural (untestable), then he is rewarding blind faith. This basically translates to gullibility and schizophrenic hallucination for the faithful. If God wants to make faith in him completely non-discernible from stupidity and madness, then that's fine with me. I'm sticking with the intellectual and sane skeptics who question him.
@TheRedneckRetard They know exactly what supernatural means, they are simply demonstrating that "supernatural" things share the same attributes as non existent things, they both cannot be tested, or proved to exist.
God isn't a physical object; God is more like an emotion. Take love, for example. You can't see it, touch it, or put it in a jar, yet people feel it every single day. To deny God is to deny love, and in a funny coincidence, the bible explicitly states, "God is love." If God is love, then every time you feel love, you are also feeling the presence of God. Atheists, would you deny love for everyone, even your friends and family? Love is beautiful, and I would not want to live without it.
Our interpretation of love is simply a chemical reaction of our brain to a situation. These interpretations vary widely among people. There are cases of mental disorder that eliminate or derange emotional response. I myself would not want to live without it either, but some have no choice.
@Pernic10us You make some excellent points, and I've have trouble coming up with anything to say in response. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but according to my personal beliefs, we are all part of a universal consciousness that is manifested through a universal love for everyone and everything. While we are alive we are all separated from this consciousness by varying degrees, but we will all return to it when we die. I take it on intuition that love is more than a chemical reaction.
@viridismonasteriense I don't claim to know everything about religion. I have my own beliefs, but I can't expect others to follow me blindly. If I did, I would be making the mistake that mainstream religions have been making since their inception. In my opinion, hate is the absence of God. Hate isolates us from each other, and blinds us from the bigger picture; that we are all connected through a common consciousness that flows through us all. Love, particularly universal love, brings us closer.
@iamhoops I believe love is put on a too high of a pedestal these days. This abstract label we assign to physical attraction (sex drive, mating instinct), affection (familiarity through exposure), obsession (loneliness, desire, greed, control) and empathy is just that. A label we put on this culmination of elements that we are fools to believe it's an emotion. It's secondhand. Hate is the same. Love is being mystified and hallowed in true Hollywood style and it should stop.
@viridismonasteriense You're right, love is merely a label, so I guess I should clarify what I'm labeling as "love". There are perhaps elements of love in physical attraction and obsession, but I see love as something more lasting and less selfish. It's something like affection and empathy without judgment.
@iamhoops So it's kindness without meaning, it's love for the sake of love, which isn't altruistic but selfish. Like forcing a gift on to someone, not for their sake, but to show off your ability to love, the range of your love, but there is no bond unless the other accepts. Why should he/she accept for the sake of love alone? Love without judgment borders on blind faith, believing without reason. My mother always told me never to accept gifts from strangers. Who knows what they expect in return
@viridismonasteriense I would argue that TRUST without judgment is dangerous, while love without judgment is not. You can love someone despite mistakes they have made, while still being wise enough not to trust them foolishly. Maybe we're losing something based on personal meaning attributed to different words, but I'm trying to refer to altruistic love. There's no need to "show off" how much you can love, and you can love someone without telling them or forcing it on them.
@iamhoops Yet in the context of the Christian God he can and he *does* force his love upon mankind at gunpoint. You make a good point there with mentioning trust, but with trust comes reason and skepticism, questions that lead to knowledge and ultimately intelligence, hopefully wisdom. There's a reason you trust people. Love is dangerous in that reasonable people can do things for no good reason, be wilfully blinded, be dependent on this feeling and put trust in 'evil' hands.
@iamhoops (con'td) Not that I'm saying that love is inherently evil and harmful, it's just that bad things and great suffering have always started with good intentions.
Too much of love can turn into hate. There is always a selfish side to love (and religion) that you want something from the other person, sometimes you can go as far as say that you *need* it. But can you take it? Just because you love someone doesn't mean the other party *should* or *must* accept that love.
@iamhoops (con'td) Your logic is flawed, in that you say love is the presence of God and hate the absence of God (so God is not omnipresent? He abandons people?). Humans are not containers to be filled, for souls to be inserted or taken out (no such thing as souls) or for love to be poured in and drained. Love and hate are secondhand emotions that rise up in the presence of certain people. Love should not be undeserved, nor should hate. I can be calm and feel neither love or hate. Where's God?
@viridismonasteriense I never said that God is omnipresent. Hate being the absence of God, at least in my opinion, is more about people turning their backs on God rather than God forsaking people. I think we may disagree on certain fundamental beliefs, such as the existence of a soul. I see the soul as being part of an energy, which I call God, that flows through everyone and everything.
@iamhoops Is God then electricity? If so he can be proven scientifically and there should be no argument over his existence. Of course, who says it's God runing through your veins? How do you know? Is this energy connecting everything, like the Force, like Chi forces, and if we trace it back to its source we'll find its creator? Do you believe whether this energy survives our death and leaves our body to go to some afterlife or to become wandering spectres (or go to hell?)? Show me the evidence!
@iamhoops "I never said God is omnipresent." < Then you should clear that up with the other billion believers who believe otherwise and not bother anyone else with your unfounded hypotheses of a dualistic nature. 'Proverbs 6:16-19' There are six things which the Lord hates' God has emotion? God has love AND hate according to the Bible. How can God turn his back on himself? Does he not read his own book? Follow his own rules? Of course not, mass murder has become a habit for him.)
@iamhoops Love has a natural explanation and actually can be attributed to physical objects. So is smoking marijuana/snorting cocaine also being in contact with god?
@Riff625 Well, some would say yes, and some would argue that cannabis is God's plant. Personally, I feel like Cocaine does more harm than good. I don't think that basing your religion around a certain substance is the best idea but, legal restrictions aside, if someone feels compelled to use a certain substance on occasion to help them commune with God, or a universal consciousness, I don't know that there's a problem with that.
@iamhoops but would you say that there is necessarily something supernatural happening when your consciousness is altered by a substance? And if god is love, aren't you basing your religious belief on a substance (just one your body produces rather than an externally produced one)?
@Riff625 Interesting thoughts. No, I don't believe anything "supernatural" is occurring when someone enters an altered state. That being said, I also think God is a part of the natural order of things.
The whole "God is love" premise laid out in my first response was more of a philosophical question than a statement of my own beliefs. I believe that what we call "God" is a universal consciousness that we are all a part of and that manifests itself through love.
@iamhoops Then wouldn't god be the sum of all experiences ever? Would it not only manifest through merely love, but every other aspect of our experience? I suppose with your statement that god is natural, then we are in an agreement of sorts. We are only disagreeing on a label, and not on anything of actual substance. Very good conversation.
@Riff625 You might be right, but following the idea that we are all part of a single consciousness (perhaps subconscious would be a better word, since very few people can claim to have sensed such a thing) there would be little reason to hate one another. Part of it is just that I think if we value this life, we need to learn to love a little more, but that's philosophy rather than religion.
This IS a good convo. Sometimes a rare thing on youtube.
When GOD unleashed the Universe, I was there. When He started creating the world, I was there. And when He was working the trees and rocks and lakes and plants, I was there to see it.
When you say there is no God, I expect you to say something like, I have gazed under the skies (with this my eyes) and travelled around the universe(walking) and carefully analyzed all the stars of HEAVEN(with these hands) and examined every corner of the Universe but I have not found God/any god. But seeing that you have not done none of this, it is clear to me that you are a brainless man/woman
@Airlightf Have you done the same for Allah or Krishna? No? But still you claim that your deity exists and the others don't. Anyway, they don't even claim that a particular god doesn't exist, only that transcendent supernatural thing are, in effect, indistinguishable from non-existent things. Your comment shows that you either didn't watch more that a few seconds of the video or weren't able to grasp its content.
I agree with you that a blind person would have to believe stars on faith. The problem is with the analogy. People with sight have an advantage over blind people. Are you saying that you have some other sense that atheists do not have? If so, I would like to know what it is. Personal experience is not another sense. Its just your interpretation of events you experienced.
@L00NGB00W Worshipers stand before God and not before fictional characters. Nothing that has no existence can possible come into this world known to us without having existence, either in one form or the other. In other words, you cannot possible come up with anything from the nonexistencia because there is nothing to be formed there. *your mind doesn't enter there since it has existence.
That which does not exist can be formed by what does exist (ie: chemical processes). And the existant can imagine the non-existant. (perhaps this is what you meant by 'mind')
An athiest can prove you that God indeed Exists:" I am an athiest and thanks to God I exist. Because if there was no God, 'I' [atheist] wouldn't exist. And I am proud of this [of my God( Glory be to Him) ]"
That reminds me testing homeopathic remedies. They have the same attributes of water or sugar pills. The only way to distinguish a bottle of water and a bottle of homeopathic remedy is by reading the label... That's the same thing for transubstantiated breads and holy water. They're supposed to be different of ordinary breads and water, but they look and do the same. Mixing them up, you cannot distinguish them apart.
Would have been much quicker to say "in this jar is the Xian god, and in this jar is nothing." *shuffle. "Which one's which?"
This is what Tracie does best: cutting through religion's obfuscating nonsense to expose how nonsensical it still is underneath.
JMUDoc 1 month ago
Tracie! I love you! Forgive me for being a male chauvinist but you are a rare combination of a beautiful face and dazzling intellect.
azzy314159 4 months ago
These guys are funny
pompousprick 4 months ago
OK! Just did not like the experiment/analogy. Makes most atheists like myself, look stupid!
So:
a. I am an atheist.
b. Please read up on advanced Physics (anti-matter, anti-energy).
c. If I was a theist asshole, I could have said, measure all three jars to 50 significant digits, and you would see that they would all be different. Proving, the supernatural asshole did have a role.
Moral of the story: No amount of convincing would work on a brainwashed brain! Lets work on ending brainwashing!
ahmedhusseinny 5 months ago
@ahmedhusseinny Please don't misunderstand "Proving, the supernatural asshole did have a role." I will bet no atheist would misunderstand!
ahmedhusseinny 5 months ago
Thanks to science the gaps god can hide in are getting fewer and smaller all the time. In the future god will be left to reside in mythology and it's believers will become irrelevant and simply an amusing remnant.
scotttebben 6 months ago 3
@scotttebben - Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Anytime science comes to a greater understanding of something (e.g. DNA) these religious conjurers simply invent a new argument that piggy-backs on the findings of science -- e.g, "DNA coding just proves that the Deity was more brilliant than we previously thought!"
314Aurelius 2 months ago
atheists are the one who have the burden of proof because WE EXIST, ..... and we are intelligent... and personal..... and capable of knowing what`s right and what`s wrong... If atheists are right, then murdering is not wrong , murdering will be another word for "surviving"
If we are not real, then atheists are right....
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theist claims. Atheism doesn't make any claims & it doesn't condone murder. Theists have the burden of proof because theists ASSert a god exists. Therefor Theists are required to form a RATIONAL ARGUMENT by DEFINING their god in specific terms & presenting EVIDENCE not scripture to support their ASSertion that a god exists. Is this too difficult for You to understand ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
I will not say u have to accept any religion but I said we are smart enough to see that this universe, the world and us, are designe.Impossible to exist "by Chance" I know u will call it "natural selection" but it´s just your other "word" to say "chance" because that´s what it is
If u find a computer in the middle of a desert your logic will NOT say "natural selection" made this computer, logic will say it was created and left there,maybe you don´t know who but u can´t deny it
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar We know computers are designed. They don't occur naturally. We don't know if the Universe or the World was designed. People are the result of Evolution. We're not designed. Natural Selection has nothing to do with the Universe. It's a process which occurs over time & allows desirable traits in Species to be passed on to future generations.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar If You're so smart to ASSume the World, Universe & People are designed then tell me WHAT designed the designer of these 3.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
ASSuming? I am using Logic and reason, Common sense. If you ASSume that nothing designed us, then the problem is yours because science has showed us the universe had a begining and if all what exists begun many billions years ago, and it is billion times more complex than a computer, just need logic and common sense to know there must be a designer
Who design the designer? It doesn´t matter if we know it or not, that will never means "there for the designer doesn´t exists"
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Logic WITHOUT EVIDENCE is nothing more than a logical fallacy. I'm not ASSuming anything. You are. You're unable to define Your designer in specific terms nor present any evidence to support Your ASSumption & You're concluding a Designer must have created the Universe. That's an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE ! Not all Scientific Theories fully explain all Natural Phenomena. However they're supported with Evidence & continual testing. Ignorance & a lack of Evidence supports Your ASSumption.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
Comment removed
tranquility4all 6 months ago
Comment removed
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar I almost forgot to mention.
You're STUPID to ASSert Atheism condones Murder. Atheism has no tenets. You don't have to accept Scientific Theories to be considered an Atheist. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theist claims.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
mmmmm I am stupid for that? So, it will be fine with you if I rape and kill your doughter, or your mom, or your closest friend ?? (assuming you have). I see your point... you prefer not beieving there ismorality or justice, because then you have nothign to worry.
I have learnd that MORALITY is the reasong why most of Atheist today axist, because if there is a creator, at the end, there will be justice... I don´t care you call me stupid or insult me,,
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Everyone has their own morality. I said You're stupid to ASSert Atheism condones murder. Obviously You don't understand the meaning of Atheism. It's nothing more than the rejection of theist claims. Since when does ANYONE need to believe in a divine creator to be Moral ? This isn't an insult but If You think only people who believe in a divine creator are moral then You're STUPID & CRAZY !
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
I never said and will never said you need to believe in a creator to be moral.. and if for you I don´t understand Atheisms,, I can say the same about you on thesits.. and I CAN prove it and you don´t.
So, what I see is that you see the point of reason and logic, and you have not argument against it, so you prefer to start insulting me,, easy way out.. call me ignorant, I don´t care, call me crazy and stupid, i don´t care, it just shows I am right about you..
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You said Atheism condones murder & that is a STUPID claim. I also asked You to define your god in specific terms & present evidence to support its' existence. You haven't done either. I think it is STUPID for You to worship something which You can't even define nor present any evidence to support its' existence. I also told Your ASSumption/claim is logic which isn't supported with evidence & amounts to nothing more than a logical fallacy.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
You are just ignoring what I said. I haven´t make a case for any especific religion or god,, I can make a case for cristianity because I am, but I never mentioned that, that is for a talk between a theist vs a theist, nor a talk between theist vs an atheist. get me?
If you use what you call "critical thinking" you will admit there must be an "Intelligence" that designed us. Stupid critial thinking will be "we are here "by chance" (natural selection if you want) get it ?
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar All you're doing is ASSuming a designer exists. You can't present ANY evidence to support Your ASSumption. That is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. I reject ALL theist claims especially the christian god. Instead of ASSerting, Try presenting a RATIONAL ARGUMENT to support your god's existence instead of ASSuming it exists. Begin by DEFINING your god in specific terms & present EVIDENCE not scripture, logical fallacies or Arguments from Ignorance to support Your ASSumption. GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar I understand theism. It's belief in a deity. In Your case it's a deity which You can't define nor present any evidence to support. You belief is based on willful ignorance & faith NOT evidence. Faith is the excuse You have to believe when You don't have evidence or in the presence of contradictory evidence. The difference between us is I choose to Question claims until they're supported with sufficient evidence. You choose to believe the claims You want to believe.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
Thanks for your "opinion" but I said the same you said about me.. you don´t know anything about theism, you just ASSume you do, but you don´t.
Use your "critical thinking" my friend, use it,, but,,, use it....
regards
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar I don't understand theism ? Guess WHAT ? I attended roman catholic elementary school. Attended daily religious class & bible study from K to 8th. grade. Served as an Altar Boy. Whenever I asked teachers or priests to present a rational argument to support the existence of their god. They couldn't. Like You, their belief was based on Willful Ignorance & faith. STOP ASSuming what I know about theism. Learn HOW to QUESTION instead of ASSuming my friend !
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar I'm still waiting for You to DEFINE your god in specific terms & present EVIDENCE to support your ASSumption. What's the matter ? Are You afraid of making a FOOL of Yourself ? You ASSume because We don't have an explanation for all Natural Phenomena a designer MUST be the cause. That's not an example of Critical Thinking. It's an ASSertion supported with Ignorance & a lack of evidence. GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
yeah yeah, I´m ignorant and you are not,, that´s always the claim of atheists... I am not makeing a case for any "god" or "religion" GET IT ? or you are smart enough to get it? I am making a case for logic and reason for existance
A computer is found in a desert and I say "this computer was designed and left here" I dont care WHO created it, but I KNOW it was designed and left.That´s ignorance from me or from you that deny this TRUTH?
Use your "critical thinking" use it
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Existence needs to be demonstrated & supported with EVIDENCE not with logical fallacies. We're not talking about a computer because We know computers are designed. We're talking about the Universe, Earth & People. We have not demonstrated nor do We have EVIDENCE to support Your ASSumption that any of these were designed. When You ASSume You're not thinking critically.
GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all The computer is billion times more complex than a computer that you KNOW is designed... GET IT ?? or do I have to be more clear?
If you find the computer in the desert, do you NEED to see the people who designed it, how he look, what he/she/it eats, to KNOW that computer was designed? GET IT ?
USE YOUR "THINKING" my friend
Science showed us that the Universe is billion times more complex than a computer.
Use your "thinking" if you claim to be a "thinker"
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar
**""The computer is billion times more complex than a computer "
** The Universe is billion........ "
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Scientific Theories are supported with FACTS, EVIDENCE & CONTINUAL TESTING.
Your ASSumption of a designer is NOT.
GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
THE FACT IS that when u start to insult, it is because u`r uncapable of building any argument against "Logic and Reason".The FACT IS that u clame to be "Critical thinker" but to find words of insulting. The FACT IS that u believe in science that proves its theory base on the "EFECTS" not in the REAL EVIDENCE, that`s why there are lots of "THEORIES" about the beggining of the Universe,all guessing, and base on "EFECTS". and I present the efects as evidence of the designer u deny
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar I'm not insulting You. I'm pointing out the FACT that a logical argument without evidence amounts to nothing more than a LOGICAL FALLACY. You're STUPID if You think Scientific Theories are NOT supported with EVIDENCE & CONTINUAL TESTING. They're not perfect. However they're the best explanation We have for EXPLAINING NATURAL PHENOMENA. What facts, Evidence & testing methodology supports Your ASSumption that the Universe, Earth & People are designed ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
Comment removed
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Example: I have a safe which is 2 feet high, 2 feet wide & 2 feet deep. I can logically conclude what MIGHT be in the Safe (a pen, wallet, golf ball etc.). However I can never PROVE if anything is inside the Safe unless I open the Safe. However I can logically conclude what CAN'T be inside the Safe. If someone claimed a Live Full grown Elephant was inside the Safe I can logically conclude it isn't. GET IT ? Logic without evidence can't prove a claim or the existence of a designer.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar By the way. I'm not insulting You. I'm trying to get You to present a RATIONAL ARGUMENT & learn How to Critically Examine claims.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You keep referring to design. If You find a pile of DUNG lying in the dirt is this proof that a designer exists ? Can You give me an example of something that isn't designed ? Obviously You need to read about the Scientific Method. It isn't perfect. However it's the best method We have for discerning Truth & explaining Natural Phenomena. You have a deluded method for discerning truth.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You're lacking in Critical Thinking skills. I'll leave You with something to THINK about.
Education is a never ending process. It's a Person progressing from COCKSURE IGNORANCE to Thoughtful Uncertainty.
You are filled with COCKSURE IGNORANCE because You ASSert Origins of Natural Phenomena which lack an Explanation MUST be designed & therefor a creator/god MUST exist.
Logical Fallacies don't explain. They comfort Willfully Ignorant People like You who refuse to engage in research.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
My friend, if a statue wave at you and start to talk and say to you "there is a creator" you will NOT believe in a creator, you will find an "explanation" why that happen. You know why? because you don´t want to believe. You dont care about TRUTH
USE your "critical thinking" my friend. You can call me ignorant, I don´t care. I can know the same or more than u about science and I don´t presume to be better than you as you do
Be happy
(I know you will end up insulting me)
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar When did a statue speak to You ? Is this the reason You believe a creator exists ? The difference between us is I believe claims which are supported with EVIDENCE & You believe what You WANT to believe. I'm not presuming to be better than anybody. I'm saying I rely on critical thinking & You don't. Here'[s something for You to THINK about. Logic without evidence doesn't support a claim. However Logic can refute a claim.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar It's time for You to wake up & free yourself from the shackles of your faith. I rely on evidence to support claims. You don't. You can't even define in specific terms the god You worship nor present ANY evidence to support its' existence. If You're not going to attempt to present a RATIONAL ARGUMENT to support Your belief. Don't bother replying.
I've wasted enough time reading Your mindless dribble.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Your talking statue scenario is LUDICROUS. However If 5 Chimpanzees waved to You & said there is NO creator. Would You believe them ? Or would You ASSume Your god is testing Your faith? Or would You begin to question the existence of a creator ? Seriously, Try presenting a better scenario than talking statues. Logical fallacies are poor reasons to ASSert existence. But talking statues ? Come On ! I expect more even from an Irrational theist.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
The talking statue is to sho you how fundamentalist atheist you are my friend... you will not believe no matter how much evidence anyone can bring.
Like it or not, the effects claim for a cause (this is science in case you dont know) Science says there was a BigBang at the biggining. How they know if no one saw it? because they look at the Effects as EVIDENCE of that big explotion. Studiyng the EFFECTS they conclude their explanation. Same with a Creator my friend
USE IT
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You haven't presented any evidence nor have You defined in specific terms the god You worship. Scientists who accept the Big Bang do so because they have evidence which supports it. You don't have any evidence of a creator that designed the Universe, Earth or People. Existence is not evidence of design. Was every pile of SHIT designed ? The only fundamentalist here is YOU. You accept something for which You can't define nor present any evidence to support.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
1.) You wish to hear from me a "definition" of a designer to start insulting me, no my friend, I am not giving you any definition. I see you don´t get it yet
2.) Evidence?Science proved the Universe had a beggining. Something or someone started it. In order to know what started it, we see the Evidence. IN the Unverse there are Time, Matter, Power, Technique, Intelligence, Life, Love, Evel, we are Personal, etc.. whatever started the Universe has to have and go beyond all that
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar How can I attempt to understand Your definition of the creator You worship if You won't define it in specific terms ? STOP ASSuming what I will or won't understand until You present it. Nobody has ever proved the Universe was created or that it has always existed. Stop trying to make SHIT up. Time, Matter, Space, Intelligence, Life, Love, Evil etc. don't prove the existence of a divine creator. We are personal. SO WHAT ? Individuality does not prove the existence of a divine creator.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar IF the Universe was created Tell me WHAT created the creator of the Universe. You stated You logically concluded (ASSumed) the Universe was designed then You MUST also ASSume the designer of the Universe was designed. Then You must also ASSume the designer who designed the designer of the Universe was also designed & so on & so on. HOWEVER You haven't defined any of these designers in specific terms nor presented any evidence to support their existence. GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Just because we study the Effects doesn't mean We discovered the Cause. Example: We live on Planet earth & we have studied the Planet. It doesn't mean We discovered the Cause of the Planet nor does it confirm the existence of a divine creator. WQe also study the effects of many Diseases & Natural Phenomena. However We haven't discovered with absolute certainty the cause of all Diseases & Natural Phenomena.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar It's time for You to STOP ASSuming & try presenting a RATIONAL ARGUMENT instead of a logical fallacy to support Your claim. If You can accept something with a logical fallacy or without evidence, Then Anyone can refute It with a logical fallacy or without evidence. However IF You can define Your premise in specific terms & present sufficient EVIDENCE to support It then It stands a good chance to be accepted by Rational People.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You ASSume You KNOW with absolute certainty a divine creator designed the Universe. However You can't define You god in specific terms nor present ANY evidence to support Your ASSumption except a logical fallacy. Guess What ? Logical fallacies don't prove your claim /belief. Sufficient evidence might.
GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
My friend, in all what I have read from you in this comments, you are the one who have been ASSuming
I haven´t mentione a "divine creator" it is you who mentioned it, so don´t fool yourself
What I see is that you don´t know you are real, neither the universe is real for you.
What created the designer? hum, that´s what Dawking asked in his book. "smartest" question ever for u right? For us, rational people, it is the fooliest question ever that was EASY answered and u know it
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Who is Dawking ? If You're referring to Steven Hawking or Richard Dawkins You'll be interested to know I haven't read any book by either of these 2 people. STOP ASSuming what I read. You don't examine ANYTHING, You ASSume. I know the Universe & myself both exist & therefor I know both are REAL. What IDIOCY are You babbling about now ? Im the 1 ASSuming ? What claim have I presented ? I haven't presented any claim nor ASSumed ANY cause. I'm rejecting Your ASSumption/claim. GET IT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
If u havent´t read StevenHawking, go read it and according with his research tell me if we EXIST (as u say we do) "by chance" ("by chance"="Natural selection" if you wish) or we must be designed because of the evidence THAT WE EXIST?
If you don´t believe we are "designed" you believe we are here "by chance", there is no more options
You deny we are desinged, you ASSumption=we EXIST "by chance", I deny we are here "by chance" and "critical thinking" gives me the reason GET IT?
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar The overwhelming Scientific Community accepts NATURAL SELECTION. They don't refer to it as chance. We are the result of a never ending process known as EVOLUTION thru Natural Selection not chance or design. Desirable traits are inherited by future generations to help it continually adapt over time. We have EVIDENCE & Continual Testing which supports EVOLUTION. What Evidence & testing methodology supports Your ASSumption that We were designed ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Critical Thinking supports Your ASSumption of design ? NO It doesn't. What evidence & testing methodology supports Your ASSumption ? What Peer review Scientific study organization accepts Your ASSumption ? Why isn't there a theory of design accepted by the Scientific Community ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
1.) As I said, u can called it "natural selection" I don´t care, it is just another word to say "by chance", atheist use this word to IMPRESS
2.) Universe has 2 options for its existance
Designed or "by chance"
If u don´t take one, you take to other one. If you say to me it is not designed, you embrase "by chance"
"Critical thinking" tells me that EVOLUTION just shows we are designed because for EVILUTION to happen, you really need what I will call a "miracle" not "chance"
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You keep ASSerting design is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe & all forms of Life. Now You ASSert Evolution is proof People are designed. Instead of ASSerting Your ASSumptions WHY DON'T YOU PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. Then explain WHY the Scientific Community DOESN'T accept a theory of design & explain Why the Scientific Community doesn't accept Your hypothesis that Evolution is proof of design. STOP ASSerting & Start presenting EVIDENCE !
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
1)Must scientist believe there is a designer. Science,as it is, don´t care if there is a designer or not, science justs have to continue working in HOW the Universe works, and research for medicine for deseases
2) Designed is THE BEST EXPLANATION for the Universe existance.There are just 2 optiones, "Chance" or "Designed". If you dont know which one it is, then STUDY THE UNIVERSE, evolution, Physics and tell me which is more probable ACCORDING WITH WHAT YOU CAN SEE IN UNIVERSE
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar DON'T bother replying because You will just continue to ASSert "It MUST be" as an explanation for anything. You're unable or unwilling to engage in CRITICAL THINKING & You're too stupid to form a RATIONAL ARGUMENT. I've wasted too much time with You. It's obvious You choose to believe what You want to believe because It makes You feel good & You're also unwilling or unable to critically examine ANYTHING.
GET IT ?
GOOD BYE !
tranquility4all 6 months ago 7
@tranquility4all
Insulting, insulting, that´s what you guys do, you think you are smart right? good for you. Keep thinking that,, I hope one day you show it
Use it !!
Bye
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You keep stating Unproven ASSertions to support previous Unproven ASSertions. Your ASSertion "It MUST be" isn't evidence & it doesn't prove ANYTHING. What You MUST do is present a RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Begin by DEFINING Your claim in SPECIFIC terms & PRESENT EVIDENCE to support It. So far EVERYTHING You've posited about design hasn't been accepted by ANY Scientific Peer Review Organization.
Instead of ASSerting MUST be, start saying MAYBE & try presenting EVIDENCE.
GET IT !
tranquility4all 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
tranquility4all 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjmenjivar I'm not going to re read all your comments. You didn't say a divine creator designed the Universe. Fine. Then answer my original Question. WHAT designed the Universe ? You also stated WHAT created the designer is an easy Question to answer. Then Why haven't You Answered this Question ? You're absolutely certain the Universe is designed. However You can't answer ANY questions about WHAT designed the Universe nor WHAT created the designer of the Universe. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T GET IT !
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar The Scientific Community does not accept the hypothesis of design. It has never passed Peer Review because it is a load of BULL SHIT & It isn't supported with ANY Evidence or testing. For You Information Evolution doesn't explain the origins of Life. I suggest You read about the Scientific Method, Abiogenisis & Evolution. Please present ANY verifiable Scientific Peer Review study which accepts design as the cause of the Universe & all life forms on Earth.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar If You think Your ASSumption of design is a valid explanation for the Origin of the Universe & all Life forms on Earth. Then Why don't You submit it for Peer Review by any Universally recognized Scientific Organization ( NOT the discovery institute or any organization which endorses creationism ) & see if They agree with Your ASSumption ? You will give them a good laugh & maybe You will finally understand what is required for claims to be accepted as the best possible explanation.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@tranquility4all
1.) Designed is the best explanaiton why the Universe Exists.
2.) As I said, whatever started must be unphysical, spaceless, timeless, entity because all that started in that beggining
3.) it is stupid to ask for a "physical" test from a "unphysical, timeless and spaceless" entity
4.) GET IT ? !!
5.) USE IT !!
mjmenjivar 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Whatever started MUST be designed ? Was every Hurricane, & Volcanic Eruption designed ? Was every pile of SHIT designed ? Can You give me an example of something which wasn't designed ? Is it STUPID to ask for a physical test from an unphysical, timeless & spaceless entity ? What are You referring to ? You keep ASSerting whatever started MUST be an Unphysical spaceless timeless entity because all that started in the beginning. The beginning of WHAT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar AND You still haven't explained WHAT designed the designer of the Universe. AND You haven't presented ANY Evidence to prove WHATEVER designed the Universe also designed ALL Life Forms. AND You haven't explained WHAT designed the designer that designed the Universe & ALL Life Forms. & so on & so on.
Just Positing "It MUST be" doesn't EXPLAIN ANYTHING. GET IT ?
Your abundance of Willful Ignorance complements Your excess of Stupidity !
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Who cares HOW complex a computer is . We know they are designed. We don't have evidence to support Your ASSumption that the Universe, Earth or People were designed. The Scientific Method helped design computers. It didn't present a Theory which passed Peer Review supporting the existence of a Designer. Is this too difficult for You to understand You brain dead IDIOT ?
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar You ASSert that if You discover something & can't explain its' origin It MUST be the result of as designer. That is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Evidence supports the premise. You have it ASS BACKWARDS. You think the premise supports the evidence. When WE don't have an explanation for Natural Phenomena It doesn't mean a designer/god/creator is the cause. You're CONFUSED & substituting a computer for something that occurs Naturally.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Based on Your DISTORTED logic. The first time You saw a Volcano erupt or witnessed a Hurricane, Glacier or ANY Natural Phenomena including the Sun & the Moon rising or a Pile of DUNG. You would ASSert It MUST be designed. Existence isn't necessarily evidence of design.This is why Your logic is filled with more Holes than a Fishing Net. You seriously need to learn How Critically examine things instead of ASSerting Your Unsupported Logical Fallacies.
WAKE UP & GET REAL !
tranquility4all 6 months ago
@mjmenjivar Now try & explain to me what evidence & testing supports Your ASSumption that a creator designed the Universe, Earth & People.Then explain to me WHAT designed the creator of the Universe, Earth & People. You need to STOP ASSerting & ASSuming claims & Start engaging in Critical Thinking & learn How to Question claims instead of ASSuming & ASSerting them.
tranquility4all 6 months ago
What the supernatural may be is simply a higher resonance of reality, which are vibrations beyond the normal sensitivity of our perception or even beyond what our instruments, i.e. large hadron collider, can detect. The brain is like an organic antenna attuned to this reality, but as quantum physicists will say, we've decohered from perhaps infinite realities that exist everywhere simultaneously. However, if you meditate or take a psychedelic, then suddenly these boundaries dissolve temporarily.
Hanahleia 7 months ago
For proof of supernatural look into the life of William Branham
54jpark 8 months ago
Because they really believe that this physical world is all there is...and when they die, that's it. How limiting a belief system....and how sad..for them.
fbwill88 8 months ago
@fbwill88 - yeah. Reality sucks don't it? So might as well make the most of this life while we each have one and stop fucking around with ancient superstitions.
BrisbaneAtheists 7 months ago
@fbwill88 If you want to look at a REALLY limited belief system....... just choose any religion. I think it's sad that RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are the limited ones...... and they don't even realize it.
Ondrix 7 months ago
@Ondrix I agree, religous people do have some of the most limiting belief systems....
fbwill88 7 months ago
Comment removed
fbwill88 7 months ago
To answer their question of 'what is real' I say they both must admit we have things that happen in this planet in which we have no earthly explanation for. Like why asteroids fall? Who tells the flower what exact day to bloom on? How do dome people clinically die for 45 minutes or longer...and then come back to life? So to deny what we do not understand, simply because we don't have words for it or because we can't explain it in our human concepts...makes me sad for them.
fbwill88 8 months ago
Like the word existence..hee...hee. They imply...'look, this is what existence is...and since you can't differentiate 'supernatural & none' in these terms..then all things God don't exist. It never occurs to them...that perhaps our limited human words for what God is (such as exist or nonexist) , is the problem....but it must be the concept of God.
fbwill88 8 months ago
I also crack up at how humans get caught on our language and use of words. Like if a phenomenon doesn't fit into our limited human language, then it cannot be the word/or the way we see it, that is wrong....it must be the phenomenon.
fbwill88 8 months ago
I feel bad for the two people on the video. Because she lives only by her 5 senses...what she can see, hear, touch, feel..etc. to say 'if I can't see it then it must not be real' is ludicrous. There are lots of things we don't see but we know scientifically that it works....like prayer and miraculous healing.
fbwill88 8 months ago
@fbwill88 Want to know what's more ridiculous? Saying: "I can't see, hear, touch, taste, or feel it, therefore it's 100% proven to be real!".
sarahIcommented 8 months ago
@sarahIcommented That's not ridiculous....... that's religion. XD
Ondrix 7 months ago
@fbwill88 I can't see inside of you.. how do I know you are real?
fusezhun 7 months ago
If you are defining "BE" as "EXIST", infinity doesn't exist. All you have to do is take something that does exist, like water, and say it both exists and is infinite. If that is the case, then NOTHING exists except water because you just defined it as both existing and infinite, which means that nothing is outside of it and it is everything AND every "PART" of it is infinite. That just doesn't work if observed reality exists, where finite things exist, where things NOT water (god) exist.
greyeyed123 8 months ago
so for something to exist it has to be seen, make sounds, have weight? Tracie's example is just moronic!!! All you're doing is playing silly games twisting semantics about something you yourself have no idea about. There is non-material mathematically proven substances in Quantum Physics ... thats so sorry that people limit existence to the physical realm. Big ol FAIL w/ this video.
snbeings 10 months ago
@snbeings Agreed............ the can't taste it touch blah blah so it doesn't exist. I think she is trying to be clever and re-invent the wheel. Bertrund Russells teapot is a much better analogy. The problem is can it be proven/disproven not what seems likely/unlikely. In order for the analogy to "God" be made it has to be impossible to refute, as is the teapot.
Cougar139tweak 10 months ago
@snbeings not in order to exist, but in order for us to be able to be justified in our claim that it exists. If something has absolutely no effect then it is impossible to distinguish from something that does not exist. Can it still exist? Sure but nobody should be claiming anything about it.
I suppose you are talking about dark matter and energy, but maybe you mean something else. Either way it has somehow manifested, because on physical things relying methods have proven them to exist.
sharkjack 10 months ago
@sharkjack
Why not claim anything about? The God deal is simple ..... Some investigate if God is true and eventually come to a direct experience of such Infinite Being. (TAG argument) While others merely speculate that it is impossible and therefore no further investigation is necessary, and then attack from limited understanding, a mere mental speculation.
snbeings 10 months ago
@snbeings the trancedental argument for god has nothing to do with experience. It is a logical argument. Now you're saying people have experienced an infinite being. I take it you are one of them, but I am not. If you're claiming direct experience is crucial in your conviction of its existance, then you are also saying that without that experience, you wouldn't and shouldn't be convinced. My question is, do you need to already believe before you can get the personal experience?
sharkjack 10 months ago
@sharkjack
well then let me modify a version of Tag as "TAG from direct experience!" Direct experience of God is not crucial to the existence of God, as God is what God is regardless of experience, belief, non-belief. You dont need to believe to have the experience, but should at least acknowledge the possibility before approaching said Being. Withholding all judgments/biases until all avenues are explored. This not some dude on a cloud with a Beard, but more so and Infinite Beingness
snbeings 10 months ago
@snbeings I agree that the existance/lack there of is not dependant on our experience of it.
You obviously believe the claim that God exists. I can't tell just yet what attributes beside infinity you ascribe to it, but you seem to have come to accept this claim based on personal experience. Do you agree then, that if someone does not have any such experience, that they then aren't justified in their belief in God.
Just to be clear, not believing god is not the same as believing there are no gods
sharkjack 10 months ago
@sharkjack
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
snbeings 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sharkjack
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
snbeings 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sharkjack
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
snbeings 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sharkjack
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
snbeings 10 months ago
@sharkjack
Yes to a certain extent I agree the lack of such experience in a sense justifies doubt/questioning. Any attributes I can ascribe to said Being, in retrospect get tangled in semantics. Just like the (attribute, idea, concept) of a tree itself is not the same as the actual tree, but a mere representation that gets wrapped in relative subjectivity. But the tree itself is what it is.
I can say however that the experience itself destroys all doubt.
snbeings 10 months ago
@snbeings
But if I have never had such an experience, how can you expect someone to believe?
The answer I have received from many people, in Abrahamic religions is that I got an experience but just didn't understand it...which defeats the purpose of a belief changing experience
qadry15 9 months ago
@qadry15
In a sense, doubt is justifiable. However hardlined skepticism can imprison you. I approcahed God as a possibility and saw that it is possible to experience God. So I followed certain blueprints, and had the experience which was undeniable because it was prior to Thought, to the mind, more real than anything I've ever experienced. It's hard to understand the experience of God because it is Unlimted and the mind is limited. Descriptions wont do justice to the real experience itself.
snbeings 9 months ago
@snbeings
That doesn't say anything. You're just saying that you were open to experiencing God, and I say that I am looking for evidence, not some feeling. You cannot prove anything other than a felling you had, which could be anything. Therefore there is no reason to believe unless I have direct proof, not just some feeling. No matter how I feel, that doesn't prove a God.
qadry15 9 months ago
@qadry15
The experience is evidence. It is not some feeling, for it is prior to; feeling, thought, emotions, existence. It is experienced as the underlying principle and 1st cause of all things. You want proof but your version of proof has limited confines and rules. You can't fit the Unlimited into that! Science doesn't look for God, Mystics do, and they are all in agreement. He exists and can be experienced. You are looking for physical proof of Infinity! Its all around you and in U
snbeings 9 months ago
@snbeings so excellent!
fusezhun 7 months ago
@snbeings
For something to exist it has to been shown to have an effect on the material world. At least something that can be proven scientifically. We have no idea what this 'God' you speak of is, so we look for evidence. If no evidence that can be shown to be actual evidence, as in an effect on something...then we can't believe. Or at least I can't believe. The example is showing that those things that are invisible can be demonstrated in the physical world. God cannot.
qadry15 9 months ago
man Christians are full of BS
MrPoxman 11 months ago
This demonstration is not going to convince anyone of anything because the
supernatural is about
a concept not about an object. A theist knows that god is the basis for everything so telling a theist that god does not
exist is telling them that nothing exists.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@humansaretheworld The bible is philosophy based. You say these things knowing its true because it IS true but only in the philosophical context not the material context. Even though you LIVE in the material world, you are thinking and speaking in a philosophical way. Most people that oppose you dont think philosophically on a daily basis the way you do.
talover30 1 year ago
@talover30 I do live in a world of ideas and need to know how the world works. Strict physical empiricism does not work for me because it leaves the world of the mind out of the picture. Biblical literalism seems related to strict empiricism in that it demands that its' spiritual stories be physical realities.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@humansaretheworld I understand the need to know these things through biblical literalism that could provide you with a more positive answer because it makes you feel better about these big questions that humans have. I am satisfied with not knowing until evidence via science proves otherwise. To me there is no need to provide a belief in a god to fill the gaps that we cannot explain. The world of the mind has different mindsets to it. Yours just takes the role of a philosophical one.
talover30 1 year ago
@talover30 I have never seen the need to complicate the world with a god as the world seems natural to me and a god telling the world what to do would really complicate the world.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@humansaretheworld Are you saying that god is a concept? If so, you are saying the basis for everything is a concept?
talover30 1 year ago
@talover30 I am saying that I consider a person's god to be a mental concept. I think that the Christian basis for creation is a concept. "In the beginning was the logos" where logos can be translated as thought or idea. God conceived the world and it materialized according to christians.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@talover30 One reason I said god is a concept is that god has all of these idealized attributes that don't exist in the real world that we can barely imagine so we assign them to the supernatural.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, yet chooses to stay within the supernatural (untestable), then he is rewarding blind faith. This basically translates to gullibility and schizophrenic hallucination for the faithful. If God wants to make faith in him completely non-discernible from stupidity and madness, then that's fine with me. I'm sticking with the intellectual and sane skeptics who question him.
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
i belive onle with proof
the day some 1 bring me the proof that god exist,i'll fall on mah knees and start praying until then;science is the only real religion
Darwin06QL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwin06QL dude science is NOT and it will NEVER be a religion.
talover30 1 year ago
Obviously these two don't have a clue what supernatural means,
TheRedneckRetard 1 year ago
@TheRedneckRetard They know exactly what supernatural means, they are simply demonstrating that "supernatural" things share the same attributes as non existent things, they both cannot be tested, or proved to exist.
cplusplusish 1 year ago
@TheRedneckRetard supernatural means that it exists out of time and space, right? In other words, by definition nowhere and at no time
Hairysteed 6 months ago
I love "Do it again"
funniest ending
Cujoh 1 year ago 4
God isn't a physical object; God is more like an emotion. Take love, for example. You can't see it, touch it, or put it in a jar, yet people feel it every single day. To deny God is to deny love, and in a funny coincidence, the bible explicitly states, "God is love." If God is love, then every time you feel love, you are also feeling the presence of God. Atheists, would you deny love for everyone, even your friends and family? Love is beautiful, and I would not want to live without it.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops
Our interpretation of love is simply a chemical reaction of our brain to a situation. These interpretations vary widely among people. There are cases of mental disorder that eliminate or derange emotional response. I myself would not want to live without it either, but some have no choice.
Pernic10us 1 year ago
@Pernic10us You make some excellent points, and I've have trouble coming up with anything to say in response. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but according to my personal beliefs, we are all part of a universal consciousness that is manifested through a universal love for everyone and everything. While we are alive we are all separated from this consciousness by varying degrees, but we will all return to it when we die. I take it on intuition that love is more than a chemical reaction.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops If God is love, what is hate?
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense I don't claim to know everything about religion. I have my own beliefs, but I can't expect others to follow me blindly. If I did, I would be making the mistake that mainstream religions have been making since their inception. In my opinion, hate is the absence of God. Hate isolates us from each other, and blinds us from the bigger picture; that we are all connected through a common consciousness that flows through us all. Love, particularly universal love, brings us closer.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops I believe love is put on a too high of a pedestal these days. This abstract label we assign to physical attraction (sex drive, mating instinct), affection (familiarity through exposure), obsession (loneliness, desire, greed, control) and empathy is just that. A label we put on this culmination of elements that we are fools to believe it's an emotion. It's secondhand. Hate is the same. Love is being mystified and hallowed in true Hollywood style and it should stop.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense You're right, love is merely a label, so I guess I should clarify what I'm labeling as "love". There are perhaps elements of love in physical attraction and obsession, but I see love as something more lasting and less selfish. It's something like affection and empathy without judgment.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops So it's kindness without meaning, it's love for the sake of love, which isn't altruistic but selfish. Like forcing a gift on to someone, not for their sake, but to show off your ability to love, the range of your love, but there is no bond unless the other accepts. Why should he/she accept for the sake of love alone? Love without judgment borders on blind faith, believing without reason. My mother always told me never to accept gifts from strangers. Who knows what they expect in return
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense I would argue that TRUST without judgment is dangerous, while love without judgment is not. You can love someone despite mistakes they have made, while still being wise enough not to trust them foolishly. Maybe we're losing something based on personal meaning attributed to different words, but I'm trying to refer to altruistic love. There's no need to "show off" how much you can love, and you can love someone without telling them or forcing it on them.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops Yet in the context of the Christian God he can and he *does* force his love upon mankind at gunpoint. You make a good point there with mentioning trust, but with trust comes reason and skepticism, questions that lead to knowledge and ultimately intelligence, hopefully wisdom. There's a reason you trust people. Love is dangerous in that reasonable people can do things for no good reason, be wilfully blinded, be dependent on this feeling and put trust in 'evil' hands.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@iamhoops (con'td) Not that I'm saying that love is inherently evil and harmful, it's just that bad things and great suffering have always started with good intentions.
Too much of love can turn into hate. There is always a selfish side to love (and religion) that you want something from the other person, sometimes you can go as far as say that you *need* it. But can you take it? Just because you love someone doesn't mean the other party *should* or *must* accept that love.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@iamhoops (con'td) Your logic is flawed, in that you say love is the presence of God and hate the absence of God (so God is not omnipresent? He abandons people?). Humans are not containers to be filled, for souls to be inserted or taken out (no such thing as souls) or for love to be poured in and drained. Love and hate are secondhand emotions that rise up in the presence of certain people. Love should not be undeserved, nor should hate. I can be calm and feel neither love or hate. Where's God?
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense I never said that God is omnipresent. Hate being the absence of God, at least in my opinion, is more about people turning their backs on God rather than God forsaking people. I think we may disagree on certain fundamental beliefs, such as the existence of a soul. I see the soul as being part of an energy, which I call God, that flows through everyone and everything.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops Is God then electricity? If so he can be proven scientifically and there should be no argument over his existence. Of course, who says it's God runing through your veins? How do you know? Is this energy connecting everything, like the Force, like Chi forces, and if we trace it back to its source we'll find its creator? Do you believe whether this energy survives our death and leaves our body to go to some afterlife or to become wandering spectres (or go to hell?)? Show me the evidence!
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@iamhoops "I never said God is omnipresent." < Then you should clear that up with the other billion believers who believe otherwise and not bother anyone else with your unfounded hypotheses of a dualistic nature. 'Proverbs 6:16-19' There are six things which the Lord hates' God has emotion? God has love AND hate according to the Bible. How can God turn his back on himself? Does he not read his own book? Follow his own rules? Of course not, mass murder has become a habit for him.)
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@iamhoops Love has a natural explanation and actually can be attributed to physical objects. So is smoking marijuana/snorting cocaine also being in contact with god?
Riff625 1 year ago
@Riff625 Well, some would say yes, and some would argue that cannabis is God's plant. Personally, I feel like Cocaine does more harm than good. I don't think that basing your religion around a certain substance is the best idea but, legal restrictions aside, if someone feels compelled to use a certain substance on occasion to help them commune with God, or a universal consciousness, I don't know that there's a problem with that.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops but would you say that there is necessarily something supernatural happening when your consciousness is altered by a substance? And if god is love, aren't you basing your religious belief on a substance (just one your body produces rather than an externally produced one)?
Riff625 1 year ago
@Riff625 Interesting thoughts. No, I don't believe anything "supernatural" is occurring when someone enters an altered state. That being said, I also think God is a part of the natural order of things.
The whole "God is love" premise laid out in my first response was more of a philosophical question than a statement of my own beliefs. I believe that what we call "God" is a universal consciousness that we are all a part of and that manifests itself through love.
iamhoops 1 year ago
@iamhoops Then wouldn't god be the sum of all experiences ever? Would it not only manifest through merely love, but every other aspect of our experience? I suppose with your statement that god is natural, then we are in an agreement of sorts. We are only disagreeing on a label, and not on anything of actual substance. Very good conversation.
Riff625 1 year ago
@Riff625 You might be right, but following the idea that we are all part of a single consciousness (perhaps subconscious would be a better word, since very few people can claim to have sensed such a thing) there would be little reason to hate one another. Part of it is just that I think if we value this life, we need to learn to love a little more, but that's philosophy rather than religion.
This IS a good convo. Sometimes a rare thing on youtube.
iamhoops 1 year ago
Transcendent supernatural dice?
Where can i order those?
I want them goddamn it!
kargaethas 1 year ago
When GOD unleashed the Universe, I was there. When He started creating the world, I was there. And when He was working the trees and rocks and lakes and plants, I was there to see it.
Airlightf 1 year ago
@Airlightf
How could you have seen it? According to genesis, all of these things were established even before the sun!
Pernic10us 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pernic10us "How could you have seen it?" I am sorry, what things are you talking? Creation? Elaborate, please.
Airlightf 1 year ago
the fact is that god is a joke
EdgeOfFrontiers 1 year ago
When you say there is no God, I expect you to say something like, I have gazed under the skies (with this my eyes) and travelled around the universe(walking) and carefully analyzed all the stars of HEAVEN(with these hands) and examined every corner of the Universe but I have not found God/any god. But seeing that you have not done none of this, it is clear to me that you are a brainless man/woman
Airlightf 1 year ago
@Airlightf Have you done the same for Allah or Krishna? No? But still you claim that your deity exists and the others don't. Anyway, they don't even claim that a particular god doesn't exist, only that transcendent supernatural thing are, in effect, indistinguishable from non-existent things. Your comment shows that you either didn't watch more that a few seconds of the video or weren't able to grasp its content.
truelazerlight 1 year ago
@truelazerlight I have not time to watch this video.
Airlightf 1 year ago
I agree with you that a blind person would have to believe stars on faith. The problem is with the analogy. People with sight have an advantage over blind people. Are you saying that you have some other sense that atheists do not have? If so, I would like to know what it is. Personal experience is not another sense. Its just your interpretation of events you experienced.
nadocrew 1 year ago
And what do the dice have to do with the existence of God?
Airlightf 1 year ago
@Airlightf
They demonstrate that Transcendental-Supernatural things are indistinguishable from Non-Existant things.
Gods, Ghosts, Angels, and Daemons are Transcendental-Supernatural entities. As such, they are indistinguishable from Non-Existant/Fictional entities.
There is no evidence to suggest that worshippers of the Transcendentally supernatural are worshipping anything existant at all.
Claims made by those unable to distinguish between 'Exists' and 'Doesn't Exist' should be questioned.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W Worshipers stand before God and not before fictional characters. Nothing that has no existence can possible come into this world known to us without having existence, either in one form or the other. In other words, you cannot possible come up with anything from the nonexistencia because there is nothing to be formed there. *your mind doesn't enter there since it has existence.
Airlightf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Airlightf "Worshipers stand before God and not before fictional characters."
Okay then, what is your opinion of the following? Fictional, or non-fictional?
Zeus, Hercules, Jehovah, Jesus, Kuahana, Allah, Amun Ra, Horus, Krom.
"you cannot possible come up with anything from the nonexistencia because there is nothing to be formed there."
Personally, I think that's false philosophical wordplay. ie: "There is nothing which does not exist."
VV
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
VV
That which does not exist can be formed by what does exist (ie: chemical processes). And the existant can imagine the non-existant. (perhaps this is what you meant by 'mind')
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
An athiest can prove you that God indeed Exists:" I am an athiest and thanks to God I exist. Because if there was no God, 'I' [atheist] wouldn't exist. And I am proud of this [of my God( Glory be to Him) ]"
Airlightf 1 year ago
How can I prove to a blind man that stars do exist? I am having the same problem with athiests.
Airlightf 1 year ago
Huge difference in comparison. There is proof of stars. There is no proof of a god being. How do you explain DNA to a christian??
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
To my blind friends there is no proof...They tell me, "show us the proof. 'Bring us one, just 'one star' and we will be belive you'"
Airlightf 1 year ago
belive ?? You are in denial of reality, but you are reaching for the stars.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
true, but they don't have all of their senses functioning... therefore visual proof will not suffice for them
Zuurkool1 1 year ago
That reminds me testing homeopathic remedies. They have the same attributes of water or sugar pills. The only way to distinguish a bottle of water and a bottle of homeopathic remedy is by reading the label... That's the same thing for transubstantiated breads and holy water. They're supposed to be different of ordinary breads and water, but they look and do the same. Mixing them up, you cannot distinguish them apart.
pedroamaralcouto 1 year ago
The dice came from nothing completely on their own.
jmsnooks 1 year ago