@VESANG If creation were to be presented like evolution which is a fact and a theory, along with observable and demonstrable results, then creation could be tested, peer reviewed and through this process become a theory. Creationists want a pass from this process and label creation as a theory. The scientific community as a whole does not agree with creation being called a theory.
@VESANG I'm not ignoring anything. The topic goes back that this "intelligence" has purpose, and a supernatural occurrence with direction. There absolutely no evidence of anything observed or demonstrable. There is no reason for me to accept a directive that this "intelligence" if there is nothing that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Once creationists begin to present this, my disbelief will continue. I admit I could be totally wrong, would admit that you could be?
They should have an illustrated bible for kids, they can't read but I'm sure they'd appreciate pictures of rape, genocide, torture, murder..etc to help them become moral people early on
Matt's grumpy here. And it's too bad because this guy, while not actually making complete sense all the way through, is really congenial and not one of those theists who patronizes you and says they'll pray for you.
@VESANG I see that you left out all the disorder and chaos that exists in the universe or is this just design as well? You also stated that macroevolution has not been observed, take that up with the biologists and scientists that have presented evidence that states it has. You still have not pointed out one single fact that I have ignored. What you listed as "evidence" is not proof of design and also provide sources so that I may read up on it.
@jdale1 Sorry for the delay! Your argument is really irrelevant trying to ignore the presents of design,information and purpose...the fact that there is a chaos and decay does not address what we discussed. Look at the posts of dopeasfuckk /above you last comment / and you will see the impact of ignoring this higher power of intelligence and source of origin and meaning.I wish you all he best!
There are plenty of materials and debates if you want to consider seriously intelligent design
You'll need to be more specific instead of just saying "the universe looks designed". That's only a subjective assertion; it's not objective (e.g., saying "that joke was funny" is subjective, but saying "my car is blue" is objective). How do you know it's designed? What's the criteria for something that's designed versus something that's not designed?
And as for morals--would you like me to start quoting Bible verses depicting cruelty, violence, and intolerance? Or can
@VESANG Cont.) I trust that you'll be honest and admit that the Bible's "morals" are rather arbitrary (in that you have to "cherry-picking" the good bits out and ignore the bad ones)?
@Scyntist Great points! Thank you for sharing them! If you you follow back you will see that one of my points is to not trust 100% anything.We all have been greatly influenced/brain washed / in many ways.It's the consistency of the argument that revels it.You said""the universe looks designed. That's only a subjective assertion"
Here the fact if we say computer is designed based on what do we say that ...and how much more complex is man who actually designs the computer ?
@VESANG We know a computer is designed because we don't see computers occur naturally (e.g. without artificial construction or its lack of presence in nature); that's how we determine what is "designed" and what is "not designed".
Complexity is a weak argument as well. In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very
@VESANG Cont.) different from what we see in life (e.g., imagine—how would a truly omnipotent being design a computer? Complex or simple?). Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.
@Scyntist There is a great deal of inconsistency what i comes to origin and meaning. I will ask you the same question.
Are design,information and purpose attribute of intelligence. Those 3 and much more are all around us...why ignore them and agree that man's products are result of intelligence but the very man making them is not.Very inconsistent and bias.
I agree 100% with you religion indoctrination is fact as well...don't trust 100% religion,politicians,science...so on
@VESANG Design must be demonstrated objectively; to say we are designed is, as I said before, an objective assertion unless you can objectively demonstrate it. Obviously if something is designed however, then that would indicate an intelligence. I'm not sure if I follow you when you mean by "information"; that term can be synonymous with "knowledge", but even knowledge must be demonstrated to be factual and correct.
@Scyntist I see your point and it is very common for us /me including/ people trying to avoid the core of the discussion.If you don't like the word design what about "result of intelligence" when it comes to origin of computer and man respectively. Intelligence according to definition is knowledge related and knowledge on it's turn to conscience ...you know what mean...let's go to the core not trying to play with words.
Again the inconsistency is a big problem to what we discuss
@Scyntist This is the reason i rather as people go to the very foundation than getting caught in the popular propaganda on both sides.
We as people are not willing to acknowledge our limitations and the fact that we are ignorant in many many cases.Science does not know many things/incl.origin of matter,space, time/. I posted 2 Q that got this one started:
1.Do you know that God does not exist? Yes ot No
2.Is there a possibility that God exists ? Yes or No
@VESANG Science does not state that it knows everything--in fact, science acknowledges how very little we know about the universe we live in, and thus it strives to better understand it through empirical, objective, demonstrable means. It is very likely that we will not know everything, however I do not see why that should stop us from attempting to understand more. Those who state that "science knows everything" (or something similar) are operating under ignorance or a straw man argument.
@VESANG 1) You are asking me to prove a negative, so I will respond with "no". Asking me to "prove God doesn't exist" is a rather dishonest and illogical attempt at shifting the burden of proof. To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist). Those who claim that God exists (theists) must provide evidence for such a claim, otherwise the default
@Scyntist Great points! I appreciate you trying to be honest.I agree with you"that should not stop us from attempting to understand more"...let's just try to be truthful to the facts and honest as you said. I am not trying to shift burden of proof with those questions...sorry you took it that way. What about Q#2- Yes or No.
Since the discussion is about God why not finding where we are on this field /being honest with ourselves as you said/. I have to stop for tonight.Thanks a lot
@VESANG Cont.) stance is disbelief. I don't have a positive belief that there's no god, any more than I have a positive believe that there are no unicorns. What I say is that I have been introduced to many ideas about divine beings and none of them are believable.
@VESANG 2) Yes, indeed there is. Nothing must be considered as absolute; facts can change when new evidence is provided to support new claims. However, God is just as likely to exist as an invisible, pink unicorn (in other words, extremely low to the point of improbability). Consider this: the more our scientific understand of our universe keeps growing and growing, the more inadequate and primitive become ancient concepts of gods; God is only left to fill in the gaps, and I must say, the gaps
@Scyntist I will be back tomorrow.Consider your understanding of no absolutes.
If science is not dealing with absolutes...can you travel from NY to Atlanta for 1 sec? There are absolutes.There is no point of discussing anything if there is no absolute correct logic and absolute truth in general...if i accept your perspective all it's only a personal opinions and never the truth.Truth is factual and absolute by default. How we relate to it,accept or reject it is the big Q of our life
@VESANG I could travel from NY to Atlanta instantly, but only if I was, say, God or somewhere down the line we discover the means of instantaneous transportation of matter (using a safe method). Presently though? No. It's impossible at this moment.
Truth, as you are describing it, is a concept--ideas that are initially conceived in our minds. We can hypothesize or imagine of obtaining absolute factual knowledge, but it would be irrelevant to whether such a concept was real.
@VESANG Cont.) Omniscience (which is often used to describe an attribute of God) is synonymous with your definition of "Truth". If such a being existed that was truly omniscient, then obviously there is such a thing as "absolute, factual knowledge". However, you can see the question being begged: is there such a being? And if so, is it God?
The point is, we can imagine ideas all we want, but they have no bearing on what is real and not real. One must demonstrate a God exists in order to
@Scyntist Thanks for sharing! There is i big problem with your statement
"there are no absolutes"...it's an absolute statement. Here is the Q to think:
Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?
If there is no absolute correct logic and truth in general there is no foundation for discussion even less proving anything .The same way you can't say "there is no God"
It's self defeating /with anti scientific approach to it/ statement.But let me express something else.Continue
@VESANG Perhaps I should have worded it properly. When I say "there are no absolutes", I mean to say that science assumes there are none. This thinking is to allow new discoveries that contradict old ones (as long as there's sufficient evidence for it) and to stray away from dogmatism. So no, I am not certainly sure that there are no absolutes. I only assume to open the possibilities and prevent close-mindedness. To say there is absolute truth though? That requires most definitive evidence
@VESANG Cont.) and demonstration. At what point can we say that though? That would require one knowing everything there is to know about the universe. Every viewpoint, every fact, every detail—something, which I assume, you think that only God can do, and yes, I believe that's logical.
However, does such a being exist? If one can demonstrably and objectively prove that, then I say that person deserves more than a Noble Prize; they would have just answered one of the big Qs of our lives.
@Scyntist dilemma for atheism/ trusting science to prove origin/
Science is the absolute criteria for atheism to define and establish truth. If science says one day there is God than everybody has to accept it ??? This is the same closed mind set as most of organized religion and propaganda ideas.
Q
So do you care if God exist at all or not? If science proves God one day would you care than...are you willing to explore the possibility of God ?If yes where would you start ?
@Scyntist If science tells you one day that there is God would you believe it ? Let's assume for a moment that they found proves for intelligent design of the universe/.No picture of God no personal contact with Him/
@VESANG If one can prove that our universe was intelligently designed, then yes—I would believe. It would be foolish not to.
I fail to see why we should jump to the conclusion that it's God (especially an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent one) though. Intelligent design would strongly indicate a deity, but saying that "only God could do it" would be an argument from ignorance.
@Scyntist Thank you for being honest! So there are absolutes! Science is naturally limited and by it's own definition of scientific method/things have to be observable,measurable and demonstrable/ origin is out of reach unless you believe that we can reverse time ,shrink space and find a good place to observe how all happened.This is absolutely impossible for many reasons.We can't even imagine what no space mean even less being there to observe the origin of it.
@VESANG Cont.) for God are increasingly shrinking as time goes on. There's no reason to say that "God doesn't exist" at this present time, but there's no reason to say He does either. I ask that if one can believe in one god, why not believe in two? Or three? People still continue to believe in the supernatural--even after hundreds and thousands of years. I'm very curious to find out why.
@VESANG say there are scientific facts about creation and that I or other atheists ignore. What are these facts and why are they being ignored if they are scientific facts? Do you ignore that evolution is not only true, but observable, demonstrable and widely accepted by the scientific community? If creation was presented like that, you would be a fool not to accept it.
@jdale1 I am sorry but you can't follow a simple argument.Nothing personal.I told you many times i did not use the word God or Bible
You agreed about the attributes of intelligence but gave it definition to be found nowhere...i am sorry/check the definition for intelligence/.It is foundational for atheism to not know what foundational words and scientific method means.You proved it all the way trough.Macro evolution is not observable or demonstrable.I wish you all the best!
@jdale1 You asked"What are these facts and why are they being ignored if they are scientific facts?"
Design,information,order, purpose which are attributes of intelligence /which are present all around us/ are scientific facts that atheism ignores ...it is that simple
@VESANG You can dance around whatever title you give this "intelligence". You use the word creation, so are you equating that the intelligence is not deity? If so, then there is a reason for this intelligence? Do you compare this to what's in Genesis? You're very vague in your definition. All Atheism is, is a lack of belief, a rejection of theistic claims that have not met a burden of proof. It only ignores what can't be proven, even the idea that there is in fact no "god(s)". You then go on to
Ramen noodles are of great benefit to many college aged adults throughout the world, therefore The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists! Blessed are they who are touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen.
@VESANG No we can't agree because your definition of "intelligence" must go back to a "god". I view the intelligence as a system of processes that direct or indirectly makes an impact. It has it's own or and disorder and isn't always positive. It's not a belief for me. I accept what science has been able to prove. It has presented me with things I can observe and experience. If science were to present creation in such a way, there would be no reason to not accept it.
@jdale1 I did not say God ...you keep using the word yourself...You have to check what the word intelligence actually means...what you say about it makes no sense. Science does not know origin of matter,space,time...how can you say they proved that life came by accident in this case.Atheism is a believe system ignoring obvious scientific facts of design,information,order, all as a reason for what we see and experience.You trust too much science...science has it's corruption as well
@VESANG you equate that to things you don't know or don't understand so that it makes sense to you. It's scary to think that we are just here by chance because there was an intelligence that made the conditions right for life to exist. Life is still just as precious and meaningful if for a fact there is no god. It's unfortunate for many that they need a reason to appricate the life they have.
@jdale1 Thank you for sharing!You went all over the place...do we agree that intelligence of huge scale /in one form or another, i will not argue that / is present and scientifically provable /observable,demonstrable / since we agreed that design,information and purpose are attributes of intelligence. I am glad you put value in life but saying that origin of life is a chance...this is what you believe ,you don't know that,even more if intelligence is responsible for us to be here
@VESANG That's one of the most common misconceptions of atheism. Atheism does in fact recognize an intelligence. The difference is, believers relate this to an individual, a lore an powerful deity with an "idenity". There is no evidence of this. You like many others try and twist into "a force" an "intelligent likeness" therefore a "god". It's absurd. We recognize the complexity of ourselves and the universe. It's intelligence in of it's self. Because here on earth is all you know, so you equat
@jdale1 How do we call that intelligence is a different subject...power,force ,God /call it as you wish/ it all refers to intelligence atheism does not want to admit exists although it's everywhere we point our eye to...this is why atheism proves /with such an attitude/ that it is bias and inconsistent.
@lederereddy It doesn't matter when you say you can't prove god exists. When you claim that you "just know that "he" did" is still making a claim. You appear to stating that you have obtained knowledge of this proof but refuse to present any evidence to support it. It's far from taking your words out of context. I never said that god didn't create life on earth. I said I see no evidence and nothing in science has proved it to be true, therefore I disbelieve your claim.
@lederereddy whole. For what reason(s) should I accept anything science had presented without methods that have produced observable, tangible and demonstrable results. If creation produced these same results, then we would have the explanation and means for which a diety (your god) has created things. If the creation science doesn't produce those results, it's not scientific. You can't special plead and just say it's "obvious".
@lederereddy Before creation can become a reality, the existence of a diety must be established first. And even if one has, in your mind how do you know "your" god is that diety and not the god(s) claimed by other religions? The fact is, you don't. You have faith not proof your god is the creator. I would rather know. That's why I keep an open mind to other factors and what science can prove not speculate. I ignore creation "science" because it's not accepted by the scientific community as a wh
@lederereddy No I don't have to ignore any evidence. Which ever points to the most logical and demonstrable conclusion is when I'll accept it. If that evidence proves to be your god or anyone else's fine. Until then, I will remain unconvinced and will continue to disbelieve in your god and any other religions god(s).
@lederereddy You think way too much into these things. Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
Science has absolutely no interest in proving or disproving god. Science is all about the search for truth and reason. There's no place for god/s when you're trying to understand truth and reason. Christian Science is all about proving god by making up any bullshit story that pops into their heads. Jesus rode a dinosaur!! LMFAO!
The annoying question of "does god exist?" does only distract from an important one. Why does he exist ?
My answer is to relieve people that are scared by reponsibility of what they do. They are not used to it because there have always been parents there for it (what might be have been wrong). And as adults they should take over this ultralarge part themselves?? So a fictive reflection of a being whose will everything is that happens takes away the pressure of those ...little sinners.
@VESANG NO I do not know if God does not exsist and YES there is a possiblity that there is a god.
The one single thing that Christians fail to understand that not all awnsers can be awnsered immediently, we can't just open a book to find out how to cure cancer or the common cold, science is based on proveable evidence, somthing that can be demonstrated, untill god can be proven real or otherwise he shall remain a possiblity.
@PurpleStorm8 Thank you for replying.Just to clarify..i am not trying to play smart but usually we as people are very bios and inconsistent when it comes to our own world view.
So here is the next question: /you said:Yes,there is a possibility./
How do you know there is a possibility for God to exist?
@VESANG Because everything's a possiblity, "facts" is just somthing that we concluded as reality but that can be proven wrong, if say aliens come visit us and brings us proof of god then religion would be considered fact and hence there would undenyable proof but that hasn't happened yet and as such I can not just take things on what the bible or a christian's word alone because we have the ability to lie, be decieved or misinterpret things.
@PurpleStorm8 My friend i hope you understand that it's not personal we just discuss the idea.I appreciate that fact that you are open about God...that's not typical for atheist.
Now on the question.So far you are avoiding it.I will try to clarify hopefully that helps.
When you say there is a possibility for God to exist did you say it based on scientific facts and research or did you just make yourself.
@PurpleStorm8 Your answer so far is self defeating. You don't know what EVERYTHING is and even less saying "everything is possible". It's factual and scientifically inaccurate denying absolutes which is base target for science.If truth can be a lie /since everything is possible/ and reality be illusion our discussion right now would be completely meaningless.
OF COURSE I don't know what everything is, all I said that it's a possiblity and that should be enough and no, no it isn't "factual and scientifcally inaccurate" and I have NOT been avoiding the question, everything IS a possiblity, our understanding can only reach soo far.
I've tried to be fair, I've tried to be neutral but obviously you won't be happy untill I say "Religion is fact and real" and won't accept nothing less.
@PurpleStorm8 I appreciate your effort trying to be neutral as you said!
All of us have been influenced big time one way or another and this is what i am trying to express-questions which will dig a little deeper to why we believe what we believe.
Not everything is possible.There are many limiting factors,science will tell you that as well.If i agree with your perspective...would you agree than there is a possibility evolution and bib bang to be wrong.
@VESANG Of course I would agree, it's a theory after all, it may not be definate proof but there is other proof to support it and again I shall state that everything IS possible, science is made by interpretation and scientific facts can change.
I just don't understand why you seem to think that everything written down is set in stone, our understanding only reaches soo far and we are constantly learning new and diffrent things, things that some of us throught were impossible.
@PurpleStorm8 Thank you my friend.Your view is different than the official atheistic one.
Evolution /macro evolution that is/ is a FACT according to main stream propaganda and i appreciate you being honest saying there is no definite proof for it.It fails in all 3 musts in scientific method /it's not observable,measurable,demonstrable /.
Would you explain what do you mean by saying scientific facts can change.Do you mean theories can change?...facts are facts
@VESANG "Official Atheistic view"? What the fuck do you think this is? A Christian recruiting station? How's this for an Atheistic view...GO FUCK YERSELF., preacher.
@PurpleStorm8 Well, I'm an Atheist, but you said evolution could be wrong because "it's a theory after all". But a theory in science is a verified framework that explains otherwise disconnected observations.
@VESANG Many atheists (I can't speak for everyone) simply take a stand on human religion. We usually say that we can't accept religion as fact simply because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and they haven't provided any. That's just simply my take on it. If they could provide real evidence (which nobody has been able to do) I would convert to whatever religion that happens to be.
@Pravtsios Thank you friend for sharing you thoughts and congrats that you are open about the idea of God.
You believe that there are no proves for God bcs this is what you have been told and for one reason or another you believed it.
Design,order,information and purpose everywhere we look prove God absolutely.
I realize that religion makes many unfounded statements as well. This is why it takes critical thinking to brake the grip of indoctrination that comes from many places
let us assume the christian god exists. now imagine that 'God' is the devil and is deceiving all the 'believers' to follow him so when they die, they go to 'heaven', which is actually hell. and the real god is actually the devil, and just wants us all to have a good time and do cool things.
here is the miracle argument in a nutshell. good things happen because of gods love. well what about babies that die? the believer well say "erm well that was the work of the devil" well i guess god isnt all powerful then huh?
@angerycamel2 No a believer would not say that. They'd say God had another plan for that baby, or God works in mysterious ways. I'm a non religious person FYI. Just saying that a believer would say that when God is ready for you he comes to take you. It has nothing to do with the Devil.
If they observe the theoretical particles...then they're observable. I think the caller and Matt have different understanding of what "unobservable" means. To Matt, deities can be classified, usually by definition, as "unobservable", that is, by any mortal means, past, present, and future. The caller seems to be stuck in the past and present part and anything that isn't observed, to him, can't be observed...ever. Which is not what the word means.
Such quote omits a qualifier that evolution without the filter of natural selection would produce such a number.
Huxley failed to see that natural seloction is only a destroyer , it is not a builder. Still mutations are supposed to be the builder(and quite ineffective they are) while natural selction demolishes the waste. So the number is still huge for natural selction just makes room for evolution is doesnt produce it.
The source is Julian Huxley, who, it is said--and he of all things a "bastion of the theory of evolution"--determined that "the odds of the evolution of the horse were 1 in 1000 to the power of 1,000,000."
the only type of people are either the "good" or "bad" . People should not be judged in any other way. let us not speak to the person that speaks harshly of others. let us surround ourselves with people who do care. all of us. love the good person and pay no attention to the bad. perhaps we should just go back to the basics. this does not mean we stop thinking of course. but it might just be a good start. who cares how we got here. we can't control anything anyway so lets just be happy. peace <3
Science is corrosive to religion, in the same way that religion is corrosive to science.
-Richard Dawkins
For the confused, evolution isn't random and it isn't instantaneous. Evolution is the gradual change over time. I cannot stress this enough. TIME! If you don't believe it, remember what happened before you were born. You were a single cell and gradually became a baby. Simple. :)
The Nova Corps exist because I'm sitting here. if they didn't exist then the Guardians of galaxy. wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't keep saving the galaxy, so i wouldn't be sitting here.
The Guardians of the Universe exist because I'm sitting here. If they didn't exist then the Green Lantern Corps. wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't keep saving the universe, so I wouldn't be sitting here.
Matt Dillahunty for president! If american govnerment starts thinking logical and rational i think much of the rest of the world would follow. And this plague of humanity would be extinct finally! Ill sponsor your campaign if i ever become a millionaire:p
@ChipArgyle He won't. His evidence is "because I said so". He admitted in earlier posts that this was his faith and he can't prove it . Once the mentality of faith enters the discussion (at least with me) it's over.
@EternityIsForReal Probably for the same reasons you look up to certain religious people. We don't have faith, we think faith is nonsense. I'll answer your question by asking you a question. What would you do if it were proven that there is in fact no God? If one of your friends one day became a non-believer? What you do/think?
I have a questions to all atheist, seems you guys really look up to this guy matt, alot of ppl follow his teachings, he was a christian before, what if one day he decides to go back? starts denying atheist saying he was wrong he made a mistake, I am just saying what if? what would you think? where would your faith be?
@lederereddy So what exactly is the evidence that you possess that others don't or that your's is better? You still have yet to present this. You're absolutely right, science does not prove that God doesn't exist, but at the same time, science doesn't prove that God exists. There are many believers and Christians who accept and or believe what the science has presented-and they still believe in Gods. Are they wrong too?
if you get more attention in a strip joint from women....wouldnt it be better to just go there? or would you rather find attention from women a different way which is more practical and honest....
this paralells religion....strip join = easy way....religion = easy way...BOTH prays on weak people, i didn't realize people actually believed in religion as non fantasy till i was 14, and was horrified that they were not faking it!!! and stoped bothering with religion after that.
@lederereddy I don't believe that aliens exist. I don't claim to know they don't exist. The lack of evidence or reported "evidence" is not a validation for their existence. I suppose it's possible given our current knowledge of the universe that somewhere in the universe there is life, but until it's proven I will continue to disbelieve.
@lederereddy I have no problem with the opposite side of the belief spectrum. I don't hate or dislike someone because they believe in God. It sure seems that many believers don't hold the same view. The problem I have is when the person states a claim as true and presents no evidence to support it. It's no longer a belief, it's a statement of fact.
@lilangel0072 "lazy ppl keep things simple. I don't care what u think i am, u can't refute the previous arguments so u're trying to preach to me?"
Lazy? what's so lazy about correctly assessing the data? You have never acknowledge the fact that abiogenesis has no basis in reality. That is one thing I refuted. You never acknowledged several things I refuted. Why? Because you could care less about getting to the truth. You're satisfied with hoping life could somehow magically appear w/oGod. Amen!
@lederereddy the fact that u're not correctly assessing anything...no u haven't refuted it u just said "it can't be true i'm to stupid to understand it la la la la la God did it".. u're satisfied life could magically appear with a God, I want to know the truth the reality behind it not hide behind some invisible imaginary friend.
Being a pursuer of science dont you need proof to make a definitive conclusion?I understand that God cannot be proven,therefore does not exist......what about there is no proof to prove otherwise so the possibility DOES exist simply because proof has not been proven either way?A person of science should not make conclusions based on no proof.So it should not be excluded completely but allowing a tiny chance that he does exist
@muslimmetalman It's a perfect analogy. You (assuming you are a Muslim) and the Christians like to separate yourselves and your God, from all other religions and their deities as if your "evidence" is more authentic. It's not. Therefor, any "excuse" for a deity is validated. Why do you dismiss other religious beliefs? Their "proof" is the same as yours.
"God exist because I am sitting here." --- "Allah exist because I am sitting here", "Zeus exist because there is thunder and lightning", "The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because spaghetti exists", "The Ju Ju under the sea exists because there are Ju Ju Candies"... My Vishnu/Buddha/Odin! Seriously? "This lake exists, therefore, God exists" O_O
@martinimix79 I'm not a budhist, however, I know Budha was a person, not a deity. A few budhists believe he is a god, but he was a person that wrote some scriptures. There is some evidence that he actually existed.
@martinimix79 """The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because spaghetti exists",""
Dont even try to confuse and muddle the issue with your absurd analogies. There is only one creator but many teachings about that creator. No one is claiming that bc we are here that any one teaching about God is correct but only that God exists bc we exist.
BTW, Huxley and evolutionist, computed that the odds of one horse existing by chance is 1 in 10^3,000,000
@j919or You are right. There is only one Creator, who has sent a message that the odds for our existence are tiny.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by bronze-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
@j919or It's a good thing horses don't occur by chance then. There are two major problems with attributing a probability of something existing: firstly, the probability of something occuring that has already occured is 1, you cannot take a situation that has occured and then marvel at the miraculous event.
Secondly, The probability assumes a blind system. Natural selection forms a feedback path which results in stabalises the system. Complexity is an emergent property of systems wtih feedback.
@breenm45 And yet that is just scripture. Not only does it not prove anything, it also does not disprove the existence of any one deity or deities proclaimed by other religions.
the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist, A modern day prophet available shortly goes beyond theoretical talk providing ultimate truth that god exists
The world has enough religion to hate others and keep others in the dark and not enough religion to love one another and accept people for who they are regardless of their beliefs. The lederereddys of the world will stop at nothing to keep you in the dark and spread hatred for what and how you should view the world. Why on earth would someone want to live this way?
You can't honestly tell me how religion has any use whatsoever...there is nothing religion can do that say...a neo-nazi rally cant do, or a gay pride rally cant do, or w/e...
There is only one goal in Life "happiness" the best way to it is through an honest path, and realistic beliefs and goals...because once you find out your beliefs are false...you have to start all over again from the bottom..."happiness" is achieved best with facts and not pinnocio bullshit
There are some positive aspects to religion. Tracie Harris in another clip talks about this aspect of religion. It provides a social bond, a sense of community, etc.
Everything religion does provide can probably be provided for in better ways, I'm just saying that claiming religion has no use at all is wrong. (That doesnt mean religion is based on truth, just that it has some social benefits)
@berenjervin well...thats an "ignorance is bliss" and "the stripper likes me" arguement
if it is baced on a lie it is still a lie...doesnt matter...religion really only groups up the filth in the filter of human refuse....easy to gather a lot of shit that way....good and smart people are harder to gather together, that is because they have less needs from others than those that need their hands held heh
Sure - all I'm saying is that some of the side effects of religion are positive. Every one of those side effects can be had better without religion, but nothing is 100% bad.
This is not support for religion, merely a statement that religion can always get worse.
also religion is usless...if there is a god...he doesnt need worship...society allready knows right from wrong, and a god allready knows who is good or not...so it is pointless...the only motivation to convince people to worship has allways been man driven, because each person DESIRES that others believe EXACTLY the way they do...and perhaps the perks to ego and material gain, and power no doubt play a major motivation...so good that others who gain nothing are supporting the religious elite
@lederereddy I don't beleive in Satan either, so I have no idea why you would even bring that up. You are trying to make Atheism into something that it is not, again answering out of ignorance.
The funny thing about knowledge is we can learn more but no one can say there's no more to learn. Especially when it comes to immaterial, eternal or spiritual realms of power and influence. If quantum mechanics prove anything, they prove there's more to whats going on in the physical world than what meets the eye. The Bible says "All things are held together by the power of His (Jesus') might. Whata Coinkydinky! That's what we find! Nothing or The Invisible One holding it all together.
@lederereddy So basically there are "way more of us than there are of you" so we are right and you are wrong. Stop the press! There are way more Hindus than you, so they are right. They worship their Gods because the KNOW them to exist. Care to call out other religions while playing your little "strength in numbers game"? 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
@jdale1 I'm including Hindu's, Muslim's, Satanist's for fudge's sake. Pay attention. Or quit trying to argue. The whole point went over your head because your stuck inside a world that you've decided is the only possibility. The Devil has to work at deceiving people smart enough to figure out the basic's of life. Atheist's are so dense all he has to do is sit around until it's too late for you. Hopefully he gets bored and gives you a dose of his reality, just to watch you grovel for God in fear.
@jdale1 That's right! There's more than one way to test spiritual realities. Get in Satan's face and dare him to try to make a believer out of you. Be persistent enough and I'm sure he'll accommodate your inquisitiveness. Haha.... I'd pay to see that. "Atheist challenges Satan's existence and ends up in the nut house." I bet you think insanity is all biological. Bullshit. People mess around with the wrong spirits all the time but some don't come back like they were.
@lederereddy Either way it neither proves nor disproves a creator. I'm more comfortable in stating I don't know rather than asserting one is more plausible than the other. Right now, at least with science we have something at least that is tangible than making extraordinary claims and guesses.
@lederereddy "you're playing stupid" Which is the more honest answer? Making something up or saying I don't know? The value system is a response to your positive claim. It's not an assertion for God's existence, you are the one making the claim.
@lederereddy "There's no laps in the logic of creation having a cause." Where would like to start? No evidence of the creator destroys all possible logic of creationism. The fossil record trumps most of creationism theories. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact, still should not suggest God's nonexistence. If "everything" has been intelligently designed, how would we know? Do we have examples of something not intelligently designed to compare them too?
@lederereddy "but it is evidence of His existence" What exactly is THE evidence? You stated earlier that you can't prove God's existence, and in the next breath you claim to know that he does. If you have this knowledge, why not share it? That's what "we" want to know because we lack the belief. It has nothing to do with hate, that is another ignorant assumption on your part. You seem to only want to answer the easy questions that put fourth to you and ignore or dance around the challenging one
My ex girlfriend and conceived a child in 2006 but the baby miscarried. I have no proof of that but I know what I saw. What you've decided is that anyone who's seen more than what can be explained in physical terms has suddenly become incredible? Why? What motive would I have? It's just spiritual information that you have closed your eyes to.If God calls you, respond! Try humility instead of pride. It works!. Seek and you will find. There's no excuse.
@lederereddy "but I know what I saw" What did you see? I have decided that extrodinary claims demand extrodinary evidence. As I asked you earlier, do you believe me when I claim I have an invisible magic elf on my head until my claim is proven false, or do you disbelieve my claim until it's proven true? Your belief is either physical or it's mental. If it's all mental, why would you or any one else expect me to believe you?
@jdale1 Not that I think you're intentionally trying to be so narrow minded and ingenuous about a subject that you're obviously more interested in than you want to admit, but you aren't being objective. Someone who sincerely wants to know the truth about God could start by being honest about himself. I guarantee this. If you write a list of those you've harmed somehow, completely ignore everything they've done to you and humbly make amends for emotional, financial & sexual errors in Christ's->
@jdale1 In Christ's name, your life will change. But you can't do that, I'll bet. Not without God. You will succumb to making excuses, downplaying and blame shifting. But mostly, you'd never dare to do it in the first place. Why not? It's not because you don't have a list and don't owe amends to someone, somewhere. It's because you're human. A broken, selfish, misguided, liar, thief and cheat. Don't take it personal. Everyone is. That's why Christ went to the cross. Not Buddha. Not Mohammed....
@jdale1 Not Zeus or any other god including yourself.
"No evidence of the creator destroys all possible logic of creationism"
Creation was created! My understanding of the do's and don'ts of engineering, design, information and their sources rule out all possibility of creation occurring without the creator being aware of everything He has done. Especially life. If you want to pretend all this just magically happened and it just happens to look like engineering? I guess ignorance is an option..
@lederereddy By your reasoning, I should have no excuse not believe in other religions claims and or God(s) because you and or I have zero evidence whether they are true or not. The Christian and the Muslim believe their God is the God, and that everyone else's claims are false. For that reason alone, why should that be the answer? Why not seek for the answers of the Hindu Gods? It's same thing.
@VESANG If creation were to be presented like evolution which is a fact and a theory, along with observable and demonstrable results, then creation could be tested, peer reviewed and through this process become a theory. Creationists want a pass from this process and label creation as a theory. The scientific community as a whole does not agree with creation being called a theory.
jdale1 19 hours ago
@VESANG I'm not ignoring anything. The topic goes back that this "intelligence" has purpose, and a supernatural occurrence with direction. There absolutely no evidence of anything observed or demonstrable. There is no reason for me to accept a directive that this "intelligence" if there is nothing that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Once creationists begin to present this, my disbelief will continue. I admit I could be totally wrong, would admit that you could be?
jdale1 20 hours ago
fuck he just flipped my world upside down.. i was atheist all this time.. but he's sitting there. the god theory is sound.
dopeasfuckk 2 days ago
They should have an illustrated bible for kids, they can't read but I'm sure they'd appreciate pictures of rape, genocide, torture, murder..etc to help them become moral people early on
dopeasfuckk 2 days ago
Matt's grumpy here. And it's too bad because this guy, while not actually making complete sense all the way through, is really congenial and not one of those theists who patronizes you and says they'll pray for you.
McTaggStar 4 days ago
@VESANG I see that you left out all the disorder and chaos that exists in the universe or is this just design as well? You also stated that macroevolution has not been observed, take that up with the biologists and scientists that have presented evidence that states it has. You still have not pointed out one single fact that I have ignored. What you listed as "evidence" is not proof of design and also provide sources so that I may read up on it.
jdale1 4 days ago
@jdale1 Sorry for the delay! Your argument is really irrelevant trying to ignore the presents of design,information and purpose...the fact that there is a chaos and decay does not address what we discussed. Look at the posts of dopeasfuckk /above you last comment / and you will see the impact of ignoring this higher power of intelligence and source of origin and meaning.I wish you all he best!
There are plenty of materials and debates if you want to consider seriously intelligent design
VESANG 1 day ago
@VESANG Mind if I cut in?
You'll need to be more specific instead of just saying "the universe looks designed". That's only a subjective assertion; it's not objective (e.g., saying "that joke was funny" is subjective, but saying "my car is blue" is objective). How do you know it's designed? What's the criteria for something that's designed versus something that's not designed?
And as for morals--would you like me to start quoting Bible verses depicting cruelty, violence, and intolerance? Or can
Scyntist 20 hours ago
@VESANG Cont.) I trust that you'll be honest and admit that the Bible's "morals" are rather arbitrary (in that you have to "cherry-picking" the good bits out and ignore the bad ones)?
Scyntist 20 hours ago
@Scyntist Great points! Thank you for sharing them! If you you follow back you will see that one of my points is to not trust 100% anything.We all have been greatly influenced/brain washed / in many ways.It's the consistency of the argument that revels it.You said""the universe looks designed. That's only a subjective assertion"
Here the fact if we say computer is designed based on what do we say that ...and how much more complex is man who actually designs the computer ?
VESANG 20 hours ago
@VESANG We know a computer is designed because we don't see computers occur naturally (e.g. without artificial construction or its lack of presence in nature); that's how we determine what is "designed" and what is "not designed".
Complexity is a weak argument as well. In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very
Scyntist 20 hours ago
@VESANG Cont.) different from what we see in life (e.g., imagine—how would a truly omnipotent being design a computer? Complex or simple?). Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.
Scyntist 20 hours ago
@Scyntist There is a great deal of inconsistency what i comes to origin and meaning. I will ask you the same question.
Are design,information and purpose attribute of intelligence. Those 3 and much more are all around us...why ignore them and agree that man's products are result of intelligence but the very man making them is not.Very inconsistent and bias.
I agree 100% with you religion indoctrination is fact as well...don't trust 100% religion,politicians,science...so on
VESANG 20 hours ago
@VESANG Design must be demonstrated objectively; to say we are designed is, as I said before, an objective assertion unless you can objectively demonstrate it. Obviously if something is designed however, then that would indicate an intelligence. I'm not sure if I follow you when you mean by "information"; that term can be synonymous with "knowledge", but even knowledge must be demonstrated to be factual and correct.
Scyntist 20 hours ago
@Scyntist I see your point and it is very common for us /me including/ people trying to avoid the core of the discussion.If you don't like the word design what about "result of intelligence" when it comes to origin of computer and man respectively. Intelligence according to definition is knowledge related and knowledge on it's turn to conscience ...you know what mean...let's go to the core not trying to play with words.
Again the inconsistency is a big problem to what we discuss
VESANG 20 hours ago
@Scyntist This is the reason i rather as people go to the very foundation than getting caught in the popular propaganda on both sides.
We as people are not willing to acknowledge our limitations and the fact that we are ignorant in many many cases.Science does not know many things/incl.origin of matter,space, time/. I posted 2 Q that got this one started:
1.Do you know that God does not exist? Yes ot No
2.Is there a possibility that God exists ? Yes or No
VESANG 19 hours ago
@VESANG Science does not state that it knows everything--in fact, science acknowledges how very little we know about the universe we live in, and thus it strives to better understand it through empirical, objective, demonstrable means. It is very likely that we will not know everything, however I do not see why that should stop us from attempting to understand more. Those who state that "science knows everything" (or something similar) are operating under ignorance or a straw man argument.
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@VESANG 1) You are asking me to prove a negative, so I will respond with "no". Asking me to "prove God doesn't exist" is a rather dishonest and illogical attempt at shifting the burden of proof. To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist). Those who claim that God exists (theists) must provide evidence for such a claim, otherwise the default
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@Scyntist Great points! I appreciate you trying to be honest.I agree with you"that should not stop us from attempting to understand more"...let's just try to be truthful to the facts and honest as you said. I am not trying to shift burden of proof with those questions...sorry you took it that way. What about Q#2- Yes or No.
Since the discussion is about God why not finding where we are on this field /being honest with ourselves as you said/. I have to stop for tonight.Thanks a lot
VESANG 19 hours ago
@VESANG Cont.) stance is disbelief. I don't have a positive belief that there's no god, any more than I have a positive believe that there are no unicorns. What I say is that I have been introduced to many ideas about divine beings and none of them are believable.
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@VESANG 2) Yes, indeed there is. Nothing must be considered as absolute; facts can change when new evidence is provided to support new claims. However, God is just as likely to exist as an invisible, pink unicorn (in other words, extremely low to the point of improbability). Consider this: the more our scientific understand of our universe keeps growing and growing, the more inadequate and primitive become ancient concepts of gods; God is only left to fill in the gaps, and I must say, the gaps
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@Scyntist I will be back tomorrow.Consider your understanding of no absolutes.
If science is not dealing with absolutes...can you travel from NY to Atlanta for 1 sec? There are absolutes.There is no point of discussing anything if there is no absolute correct logic and absolute truth in general...if i accept your perspective all it's only a personal opinions and never the truth.Truth is factual and absolute by default. How we relate to it,accept or reject it is the big Q of our life
VESANG 19 hours ago
@VESANG I could travel from NY to Atlanta instantly, but only if I was, say, God or somewhere down the line we discover the means of instantaneous transportation of matter (using a safe method). Presently though? No. It's impossible at this moment.
Truth, as you are describing it, is a concept--ideas that are initially conceived in our minds. We can hypothesize or imagine of obtaining absolute factual knowledge, but it would be irrelevant to whether such a concept was real.
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@VESANG Cont.) Omniscience (which is often used to describe an attribute of God) is synonymous with your definition of "Truth". If such a being existed that was truly omniscient, then obviously there is such a thing as "absolute, factual knowledge". However, you can see the question being begged: is there such a being? And if so, is it God?
The point is, we can imagine ideas all we want, but they have no bearing on what is real and not real. One must demonstrate a God exists in order to
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@VESANG Cont.) logically justify believing in the existence of said being.
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@Scyntist Thanks for sharing! There is i big problem with your statement
"there are no absolutes"...it's an absolute statement. Here is the Q to think:
Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?
If there is no absolute correct logic and truth in general there is no foundation for discussion even less proving anything .The same way you can't say "there is no God"
It's self defeating /with anti scientific approach to it/ statement.But let me express something else.Continue
VESANG 4 hours ago
@VESANG Perhaps I should have worded it properly. When I say "there are no absolutes", I mean to say that science assumes there are none. This thinking is to allow new discoveries that contradict old ones (as long as there's sufficient evidence for it) and to stray away from dogmatism. So no, I am not certainly sure that there are no absolutes. I only assume to open the possibilities and prevent close-mindedness. To say there is absolute truth though? That requires most definitive evidence
Scyntist 2 hours ago
@VESANG Cont.) and demonstration. At what point can we say that though? That would require one knowing everything there is to know about the universe. Every viewpoint, every fact, every detail—something, which I assume, you think that only God can do, and yes, I believe that's logical.
However, does such a being exist? If one can demonstrably and objectively prove that, then I say that person deserves more than a Noble Prize; they would have just answered one of the big Qs of our lives.
Scyntist 2 hours ago
@Scyntist dilemma for atheism/ trusting science to prove origin/
Science is the absolute criteria for atheism to define and establish truth. If science says one day there is God than everybody has to accept it ??? This is the same closed mind set as most of organized religion and propaganda ideas.
Q
So do you care if God exist at all or not? If science proves God one day would you care than...are you willing to explore the possibility of God ?If yes where would you start ?
VESANG 3 minutes ago
@Scyntist If science tells you one day that there is God would you believe it ? Let's assume for a moment that they found proves for intelligent design of the universe/.No picture of God no personal contact with Him/
Would you trust them
VESANG 4 hours ago
@VESANG If one can prove that our universe was intelligently designed, then yes—I would believe. It would be foolish not to.
I fail to see why we should jump to the conclusion that it's God (especially an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent one) though. Intelligent design would strongly indicate a deity, but saying that "only God could do it" would be an argument from ignorance.
Scyntist 2 hours ago
@Scyntist Thank you for being honest! So there are absolutes! Science is naturally limited and by it's own definition of scientific method/things have to be observable,measurable and demonstrable/ origin is out of reach unless you believe that we can reverse time ,shrink space and find a good place to observe how all happened.This is absolutely impossible for many reasons.We can't even imagine what no space mean even less being there to observe the origin of it.
How do you
VESANG 18 minutes ago
@VESANG Cont.) for God are increasingly shrinking as time goes on. There's no reason to say that "God doesn't exist" at this present time, but there's no reason to say He does either. I ask that if one can believe in one god, why not believe in two? Or three? People still continue to believe in the supernatural--even after hundreds and thousands of years. I'm very curious to find out why.
Scyntist 19 hours ago
@VESANG say there are scientific facts about creation and that I or other atheists ignore. What are these facts and why are they being ignored if they are scientific facts? Do you ignore that evolution is not only true, but observable, demonstrable and widely accepted by the scientific community? If creation was presented like that, you would be a fool not to accept it.
jdale1 5 days ago
@jdale1 I am sorry but you can't follow a simple argument.Nothing personal.I told you many times i did not use the word God or Bible
You agreed about the attributes of intelligence but gave it definition to be found nowhere...i am sorry/check the definition for intelligence/.It is foundational for atheism to not know what foundational words and scientific method means.You proved it all the way trough.Macro evolution is not observable or demonstrable.I wish you all the best!
VESANG 4 days ago
@jdale1 You asked"What are these facts and why are they being ignored if they are scientific facts?"
Design,information,order, purpose which are attributes of intelligence /which are present all around us/ are scientific facts that atheism ignores ...it is that simple
VESANG 4 days ago
@VESANG You can dance around whatever title you give this "intelligence". You use the word creation, so are you equating that the intelligence is not deity? If so, then there is a reason for this intelligence? Do you compare this to what's in Genesis? You're very vague in your definition. All Atheism is, is a lack of belief, a rejection of theistic claims that have not met a burden of proof. It only ignores what can't be proven, even the idea that there is in fact no "god(s)". You then go on to
jdale1 5 days ago
Ramen noodles are of great benefit to many college aged adults throughout the world, therefore The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists! Blessed are they who are touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen.
palerider1775 5 days ago
@VESANG No we can't agree because your definition of "intelligence" must go back to a "god". I view the intelligence as a system of processes that direct or indirectly makes an impact. It has it's own or and disorder and isn't always positive. It's not a belief for me. I accept what science has been able to prove. It has presented me with things I can observe and experience. If science were to present creation in such a way, there would be no reason to not accept it.
jdale1 5 days ago
@jdale1 I did not say God ...you keep using the word yourself...You have to check what the word intelligence actually means...what you say about it makes no sense. Science does not know origin of matter,space,time...how can you say they proved that life came by accident in this case.Atheism is a believe system ignoring obvious scientific facts of design,information,order, all as a reason for what we see and experience.You trust too much science...science has it's corruption as well
VESANG 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy's logic is the same as:
All cats have four legs.
My dog has four legs.
Therefore, my dog is a cat.
HonestMan395 6 days ago
Comment removed
HonestMan395 6 days ago
@VESANG you equate that to things you don't know or don't understand so that it makes sense to you. It's scary to think that we are just here by chance because there was an intelligence that made the conditions right for life to exist. Life is still just as precious and meaningful if for a fact there is no god. It's unfortunate for many that they need a reason to appricate the life they have.
jdale1 6 days ago
@jdale1 Thank you for sharing!You went all over the place...do we agree that intelligence of huge scale /in one form or another, i will not argue that / is present and scientifically provable /observable,demonstrable / since we agreed that design,information and purpose are attributes of intelligence. I am glad you put value in life but saying that origin of life is a chance...this is what you believe ,you don't know that,even more if intelligence is responsible for us to be here
VESANG 5 days ago
@VESANG That's one of the most common misconceptions of atheism. Atheism does in fact recognize an intelligence. The difference is, believers relate this to an individual, a lore an powerful deity with an "idenity". There is no evidence of this. You like many others try and twist into "a force" an "intelligent likeness" therefore a "god". It's absurd. We recognize the complexity of ourselves and the universe. It's intelligence in of it's self. Because here on earth is all you know, so you equat
jdale1 6 days ago
@VESANG Sure, but there is no evidence that those "attriubutes" are the workings of a "who".
jdale1 6 days ago
@VESANG Sure, but there is absolutely no evidence that those "attributes" are the workings of a "who".
jdale1 6 days ago
@jdale1 How do we call that intelligence is a different subject...power,force ,God /call it as you wish/ it all refers to intelligence atheism does not want to admit exists although it's everywhere we point our eye to...this is why atheism proves /with such an attitude/ that it is bias and inconsistent.
VESANG 6 days ago
I think my I.Q. has dropped after watching this.
jamma246 6 days ago
@lederereddy It doesn't matter when you say you can't prove god exists. When you claim that you "just know that "he" did" is still making a claim. You appear to stating that you have obtained knowledge of this proof but refuse to present any evidence to support it. It's far from taking your words out of context. I never said that god didn't create life on earth. I said I see no evidence and nothing in science has proved it to be true, therefore I disbelieve your claim.
jdale1 6 days ago
@jdale1 Would you agree that it is scientific to say that design,information and purpose are attributes of intelligence ?
VESANG 6 days ago
@lederereddy whole. For what reason(s) should I accept anything science had presented without methods that have produced observable, tangible and demonstrable results. If creation produced these same results, then we would have the explanation and means for which a diety (your god) has created things. If the creation science doesn't produce those results, it's not scientific. You can't special plead and just say it's "obvious".
jdale1 6 days ago
@lederereddy Before creation can become a reality, the existence of a diety must be established first. And even if one has, in your mind how do you know "your" god is that diety and not the god(s) claimed by other religions? The fact is, you don't. You have faith not proof your god is the creator. I would rather know. That's why I keep an open mind to other factors and what science can prove not speculate. I ignore creation "science" because it's not accepted by the scientific community as a wh
jdale1 6 days ago
@lederereddy No I don't have to ignore any evidence. Which ever points to the most logical and demonstrable conclusion is when I'll accept it. If that evidence proves to be your god or anyone else's fine. Until then, I will remain unconvinced and will continue to disbelieve in your god and any other religions god(s).
jdale1 6 days ago
@lederereddy You think way too much into these things. Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
jdale1 6 days ago
Comment removed
lederereddy 6 days ago
@lederereddy I don't need a god to tell me those to subjects are wrong.
jdale1 6 days ago
Science has absolutely no interest in proving or disproving god. Science is all about the search for truth and reason. There's no place for god/s when you're trying to understand truth and reason. Christian Science is all about proving god by making up any bullshit story that pops into their heads. Jesus rode a dinosaur!! LMFAO!
TheCrimsonification 1 week ago
I have to disagree with Matt in respect to reality being subjective. Reality isn't even well defined.
MilOurives 1 week ago
i used to not get blown, until my girlfriend took a floor to her knees
youthank8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The annoying question of "does god exist?" does only distract from an important one. Why does he exist ?
My answer is to relieve people that are scared by reponsibility of what they do. They are not used to it because there have always been parents there for it (what might be have been wrong). And as adults they should take over this ultralarge part themselves?? So a fictive reflection of a being whose will everything is that happens takes away the pressure of those ...little sinners.
Zelle10 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zelle10 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zelle10 1 week ago
2 questions that will prove that atheism is very bios,inconsistent and anti scientific.
1.Do you know that God does not exist ? Yes or No
2.Is there a possibility that God exists ? Yes or No
Be very careful with your answers !
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG NO I do not know if God does not exsist and YES there is a possiblity that there is a god.
The one single thing that Christians fail to understand that not all awnsers can be awnsered immediently, we can't just open a book to find out how to cure cancer or the common cold, science is based on proveable evidence, somthing that can be demonstrated, untill god can be proven real or otherwise he shall remain a possiblity.
PurpleStorm8 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 Thank you for replying.Just to clarify..i am not trying to play smart but usually we as people are very bios and inconsistent when it comes to our own world view.
So here is the next question: /you said:Yes,there is a possibility./
How do you know there is a possibility for God to exist?
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG Because everything's a possiblity, "facts" is just somthing that we concluded as reality but that can be proven wrong, if say aliens come visit us and brings us proof of god then religion would be considered fact and hence there would undenyable proof but that hasn't happened yet and as such I can not just take things on what the bible or a christian's word alone because we have the ability to lie, be decieved or misinterpret things.
PurpleStorm8 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 Thank you for replying but that's beside the point.Ignore Bible ,Quran ...so on for now.The question was:
How do you know that there is a possibility for God to exist ?
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG Urr I awnsered that in the first sentance, I said "Because everything's a possiblity" simple as that.
We learn somthing new everyday and one day it just might just be god himself.
PurpleStorm8 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 My friend i hope you understand that it's not personal we just discuss the idea.I appreciate that fact that you are open about God...that's not typical for atheist.
Now on the question.So far you are avoiding it.I will try to clarify hopefully that helps.
When you say there is a possibility for God to exist did you say it based on scientific facts and research or did you just make yourself.
VESANG 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 Your answer so far is self defeating. You don't know what EVERYTHING is and even less saying "everything is possible". It's factual and scientifically inaccurate denying absolutes which is base target for science.If truth can be a lie /since everything is possible/ and reality be illusion our discussion right now would be completely meaningless.
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG Self defeating?
OF COURSE I don't know what everything is, all I said that it's a possiblity and that should be enough and no, no it isn't "factual and scientifcally inaccurate" and I have NOT been avoiding the question, everything IS a possiblity, our understanding can only reach soo far.
I've tried to be fair, I've tried to be neutral but obviously you won't be happy untill I say "Religion is fact and real" and won't accept nothing less.
PurpleStorm8 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 I appreciate your effort trying to be neutral as you said!
All of us have been influenced big time one way or another and this is what i am trying to express-questions which will dig a little deeper to why we believe what we believe.
Not everything is possible.There are many limiting factors,science will tell you that as well.If i agree with your perspective...would you agree than there is a possibility evolution and bib bang to be wrong.
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG Of course I would agree, it's a theory after all, it may not be definate proof but there is other proof to support it and again I shall state that everything IS possible, science is made by interpretation and scientific facts can change.
I just don't understand why you seem to think that everything written down is set in stone, our understanding only reaches soo far and we are constantly learning new and diffrent things, things that some of us throught were impossible.
PurpleStorm8 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 Thank you my friend.Your view is different than the official atheistic one.
Evolution /macro evolution that is/ is a FACT according to main stream propaganda and i appreciate you being honest saying there is no definite proof for it.It fails in all 3 musts in scientific method /it's not observable,measurable,demonstrable /.
Would you explain what do you mean by saying scientific facts can change.Do you mean theories can change?...facts are facts
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG "Official Atheistic view"? What the fuck do you think this is? A Christian recruiting station? How's this for an Atheistic view...GO FUCK YERSELF., preacher.
TheCrimsonification 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCrimsonification My friend please don't act in a childish and immature way!
We are discussing here...you are talking about proves and reason in science....
you missed the 2 Q here:
1.Do you know that God does not exist ? Yes or No
2.Is there a possibility that God exists ? Yes or No
VESANG 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 What do you think the term "Theory" means in science.
bradkey98765 1 week ago
@bradkey98765 *Sigh* I made my case already, I don't know HOW much I have to repeat myself.
Anything's possible, including god but there's NO proof, so religion is unproven, the end.
PurpleStorm8 1 week ago
@PurpleStorm8 Well, I'm an Atheist, but you said evolution could be wrong because "it's a theory after all". But a theory in science is a verified framework that explains otherwise disconnected observations.
bradkey98765 6 days ago
@VESANG Many atheists (I can't speak for everyone) simply take a stand on human religion. We usually say that we can't accept religion as fact simply because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and they haven't provided any. That's just simply my take on it. If they could provide real evidence (which nobody has been able to do) I would convert to whatever religion that happens to be.
Pravtsios 1 week ago
@Pravtsios Thank you friend for sharing you thoughts and congrats that you are open about the idea of God.
You believe that there are no proves for God bcs this is what you have been told and for one reason or another you believed it.
Design,order,information and purpose everywhere we look prove God absolutely.
I realize that religion makes many unfounded statements as well. This is why it takes critical thinking to brake the grip of indoctrination that comes from many places
.
VESANG 1 week ago
@VESANG What does "bios" mean? Do you mean "bias"?
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 week ago
i still have aboloutly no idea why i have sat and watched 5 videos of this shit XD
KLu7zz 1 week ago
"The proton accelerator thingy" :facepalm:
rsr789 2 weeks ago
The giant floating toilet exists because we take dumps.
DasHinchen 2 weeks ago
I'm sitting here, and I made myself sit here, therefore I must be god! Also Einhorn is Finkle.
rsr789 3 weeks ago 9
let us assume the christian god exists. now imagine that 'God' is the devil and is deceiving all the 'believers' to follow him so when they die, they go to 'heaven', which is actually hell. and the real god is actually the devil, and just wants us all to have a good time and do cool things.
TheYetoRieck 3 weeks ago 4
@TheYetoRieck I'd rather not.
1123joey 3 weeks ago
@TheYetoRieck He dose a lot of work just to see people burn : ) . . .
TheSouthernPsycho 2 weeks ago
Theres no more beer in my fridge, therefore god does not exist.
Mark2790 1 month ago 47
@Mark2790 LOL
AWillsMusic 2 weeks ago
here is the miracle argument in a nutshell. good things happen because of gods love. well what about babies that die? the believer well say "erm well that was the work of the devil" well i guess god isnt all powerful then huh?
angerycamel2 1 month ago
@angerycamel2 Why does evil exist? Why does bad things happen to good people?
elibeth121 1 month ago
@angerycamel2 No a believer would not say that. They'd say God had another plan for that baby, or God works in mysterious ways. I'm a non religious person FYI. Just saying that a believer would say that when God is ready for you he comes to take you. It has nothing to do with the Devil.
Hallucination 3 weeks ago
@Hallucination They do say bad things happen because of Satan every once in a while, like when people are "possessed" or "tempted" by the devil.
offwithurhead 3 weeks ago
5'45. Hey, I want a switch like that!
bobinhk1 1 month ago
lol tracie's smile makes me smile.
WalkerOfMyles 1 month ago
If they observe the theoretical particles...then they're observable. I think the caller and Matt have different understanding of what "unobservable" means. To Matt, deities can be classified, usually by definition, as "unobservable", that is, by any mortal means, past, present, and future. The caller seems to be stuck in the past and present part and anything that isn't observed, to him, can't be observed...ever. Which is not what the word means.
bgiv2010 1 month ago
Such quote omits a qualifier that evolution without the filter of natural selection would produce such a number.
Huxley failed to see that natural seloction is only a destroyer , it is not a builder. Still mutations are supposed to be the builder(and quite ineffective they are) while natural selction demolishes the waste. So the number is still huge for natural selction just makes room for evolution is doesnt produce it.
j919or 2 months ago
The source is Julian Huxley, who, it is said--and he of all things a "bastion of the theory of evolution"--determined that "the odds of the evolution of the horse were 1 in 1000 to the power of 1,000,000."
j919or 2 months ago
too bad there isnt a hold button for every religious debate :P
basalisk335 2 months ago 4
I'm still working on that syllogism challenge. I'm an atheist, but I REALLY want my own house.
IHasChannel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You ever seen so many pedaphiles on one page?
Look over to your right!
Scary isn't it?
icabodcranium 2 months ago
the only type of people are either the "good" or "bad" . People should not be judged in any other way. let us not speak to the person that speaks harshly of others. let us surround ourselves with people who do care. all of us. love the good person and pay no attention to the bad. perhaps we should just go back to the basics. this does not mean we stop thinking of course. but it might just be a good start. who cares how we got here. we can't control anything anyway so lets just be happy. peace <3
Minkathestrange 2 months ago
@Minkathestrange I'm not sure we can classify people as good and bad, maybe actionsm but not "people"...
sinachiniforoosh 1 month ago
Science is corrosive to religion, in the same way that religion is corrosive to science.
-Richard Dawkins
For the confused, evolution isn't random and it isn't instantaneous. Evolution is the gradual change over time. I cannot stress this enough. TIME! If you don't believe it, remember what happened before you were born. You were a single cell and gradually became a baby. Simple. :)
AlbinoAJ 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbinoAJ so you mean to tell me that the elephant evolved from a piece of a rock in just 6000 years that the earth has been in existence?
topperheartramada 1 month ago
"Blow it out your ass,blow it out your ass,blow it out your ass!!!"---- George Carlin
rustytromboneextract 2 months ago
The Nova Corps exist because I'm sitting here. if they didn't exist then the Guardians of galaxy. wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't keep saving the galaxy, so i wouldn't be sitting here.
xxrigo22xx 2 months ago
The Guardians of the Universe exist because I'm sitting here. If they didn't exist then the Green Lantern Corps. wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't keep saving the universe, so I wouldn't be sitting here.
Anglomachian 2 months ago
Matt Dillahunty for president! If american govnerment starts thinking logical and rational i think much of the rest of the world would follow. And this plague of humanity would be extinct finally! Ill sponsor your campaign if i ever become a millionaire:p
TheAllien111 2 months ago
is this an hour long show?
stalkingcat123 2 months ago
She won the argument @2:35. No need to finish the video.
jvclark2 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle He won't. His evidence is "because I said so". He admitted in earlier posts that this was his faith and he can't prove it . Once the mentality of faith enters the discussion (at least with me) it's over.
jdale1 2 months ago 2
@EternityIsForReal Probably for the same reasons you look up to certain religious people. We don't have faith, we think faith is nonsense. I'll answer your question by asking you a question. What would you do if it were proven that there is in fact no God? If one of your friends one day became a non-believer? What you do/think?
jdale1 2 months ago
I have a questions to all atheist, seems you guys really look up to this guy matt, alot of ppl follow his teachings, he was a christian before, what if one day he decides to go back? starts denying atheist saying he was wrong he made a mistake, I am just saying what if? what would you think? where would your faith be?
EternityIsForReal 2 months ago
@lederereddy So what exactly is the evidence that you possess that others don't or that your's is better? You still have yet to present this. You're absolutely right, science does not prove that God doesn't exist, but at the same time, science doesn't prove that God exists. There are many believers and Christians who accept and or believe what the science has presented-and they still believe in Gods. Are they wrong too?
jdale1 2 months ago
Great show
sarainreno30 2 months ago
Hahah, "for christ sake, let me talk" ... :P
LordRigio 3 months ago
if you get more attention in a strip joint from women....wouldnt it be better to just go there? or would you rather find attention from women a different way which is more practical and honest....
this paralells religion....strip join = easy way....religion = easy way...BOTH prays on weak people, i didn't realize people actually believed in religion as non fantasy till i was 14, and was horrified that they were not faking it!!! and stoped bothering with religion after that.
MadMAn12gauge 3 months ago
@lederereddy I don't believe that aliens exist. I don't claim to know they don't exist. The lack of evidence or reported "evidence" is not a validation for their existence. I suppose it's possible given our current knowledge of the universe that somewhere in the universe there is life, but until it's proven I will continue to disbelieve.
jdale1 3 months ago
@lederereddy I have no problem with the opposite side of the belief spectrum. I don't hate or dislike someone because they believe in God. It sure seems that many believers don't hold the same view. The problem I have is when the person states a claim as true and presents no evidence to support it. It's no longer a belief, it's a statement of fact.
jdale1 3 months ago
@berenjervin Funny, the Gita makes the same claim. Coincidence?
jdale1 3 months ago
@lilangel0072 "lazy ppl keep things simple. I don't care what u think i am, u can't refute the previous arguments so u're trying to preach to me?"
Lazy? what's so lazy about correctly assessing the data? You have never acknowledge the fact that abiogenesis has no basis in reality. That is one thing I refuted. You never acknowledged several things I refuted. Why? Because you could care less about getting to the truth. You're satisfied with hoping life could somehow magically appear w/oGod. Amen!
lederereddy 3 months ago
@lederereddy the fact that u're not correctly assessing anything...no u haven't refuted it u just said "it can't be true i'm to stupid to understand it la la la la la God did it".. u're satisfied life could magically appear with a God, I want to know the truth the reality behind it not hide behind some invisible imaginary friend.
lilangel0072 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt'shand at 0:20 is epic.
fletchers4 3 months ago
Comment removed
fletchers4 3 months ago
Comment removed
fletchers4 3 months ago
Being a pursuer of science dont you need proof to make a definitive conclusion?I understand that God cannot be proven,therefore does not exist......what about there is no proof to prove otherwise so the possibility DOES exist simply because proof has not been proven either way?A person of science should not make conclusions based on no proof.So it should not be excluded completely but allowing a tiny chance that he does exist
waderp 3 months ago
@muslimmetalman It's a perfect analogy. You (assuming you are a Muslim) and the Christians like to separate yourselves and your God, from all other religions and their deities as if your "evidence" is more authentic. It's not. Therefor, any "excuse" for a deity is validated. Why do you dismiss other religious beliefs? Their "proof" is the same as yours.
jdale1 3 months ago
@jdale1
>Why do you dismiss other religious beliefs?
Its stated directly in the quran that no one has the right to worship a god other than allah.
This is apparently from allah himself.
berenjervin 3 months ago
"God exist because I am sitting here." --- "Allah exist because I am sitting here", "Zeus exist because there is thunder and lightning", "The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because spaghetti exists", "The Ju Ju under the sea exists because there are Ju Ju Candies"... My Vishnu/Buddha/Odin! Seriously? "This lake exists, therefore, God exists" O_O
martinimix79 3 months ago 66
@martinimix79 not a good analogy...
muslimmetalman 3 months ago
@muslimmetalman Why not? Show me the flaw(s), please.
Tairaa2 3 months ago
@martinimix79 I'm not a budhist, however, I know Budha was a person, not a deity. A few budhists believe he is a god, but he was a person that wrote some scriptures. There is some evidence that he actually existed.
moorg745 3 months ago
@martinimix79 """The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because spaghetti exists",""
Dont even try to confuse and muddle the issue with your absurd analogies. There is only one creator but many teachings about that creator. No one is claiming that bc we are here that any one teaching about God is correct but only that God exists bc we exist.
BTW, Huxley and evolutionist, computed that the odds of one horse existing by chance is 1 in 10^3,000,000
j919or 2 months ago
@j919or You are right. There is only one Creator, who has sent a message that the odds for our existence are tiny.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by bronze-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 2 months ago 2
@j919or It's a good thing horses don't occur by chance then. There are two major problems with attributing a probability of something existing: firstly, the probability of something occuring that has already occured is 1, you cannot take a situation that has occured and then marvel at the miraculous event.
Secondly, The probability assumes a blind system. Natural selection forms a feedback path which results in stabalises the system. Complexity is an emergent property of systems wtih feedback.
AussieAtheist1 2 months ago
@martinimix79 they're called jujubes you heathen blasphemous whore
BrendanIsCool 2 months ago 3
@BrendanIsCool HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH
mistert791979 2 months ago
@martinimix79 Well, actually, Buddha did exist.
He wasn't a god, just a man with philosiphical beliefs that many people agree with.
BlackenedThorn 1 month ago 23
^_^ Namaste BlackenedThorn.
martinimix79 1 month ago
@martinimix79 Namaste?
Don't know what it means, but it sounds sexy.
BlackenedThorn 1 month ago
@breenm45 And yet that is just scripture. Not only does it not prove anything, it also does not disprove the existence of any one deity or deities proclaimed by other religions.
jdale1 3 months ago 24
the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist, A modern day prophet available shortly goes beyond theoretical talk providing ultimate truth that god exists
breenm45 3 months ago
The world has enough religion to hate others and keep others in the dark and not enough religion to love one another and accept people for who they are regardless of their beliefs. The lederereddys of the world will stop at nothing to keep you in the dark and spread hatred for what and how you should view the world. Why on earth would someone want to live this way?
jdale1 3 months ago
You can't honestly tell me how religion has any use whatsoever...there is nothing religion can do that say...a neo-nazi rally cant do, or a gay pride rally cant do, or w/e...
There is only one goal in Life "happiness" the best way to it is through an honest path, and realistic beliefs and goals...because once you find out your beliefs are false...you have to start all over again from the bottom..."happiness" is achieved best with facts and not pinnocio bullshit
MadMAn12gauge 3 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge
There are some positive aspects to religion. Tracie Harris in another clip talks about this aspect of religion. It provides a social bond, a sense of community, etc.
Everything religion does provide can probably be provided for in better ways, I'm just saying that claiming religion has no use at all is wrong. (That doesnt mean religion is based on truth, just that it has some social benefits)
berenjervin 3 months ago
@berenjervin well...thats an "ignorance is bliss" and "the stripper likes me" arguement
if it is baced on a lie it is still a lie...doesnt matter...religion really only groups up the filth in the filter of human refuse....easy to gather a lot of shit that way....good and smart people are harder to gather together, that is because they have less needs from others than those that need their hands held heh
MadMAn12gauge 3 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge
Sure - all I'm saying is that some of the side effects of religion are positive. Every one of those side effects can be had better without religion, but nothing is 100% bad.
This is not support for religion, merely a statement that religion can always get worse.
berenjervin 3 months ago
also religion is usless...if there is a god...he doesnt need worship...society allready knows right from wrong, and a god allready knows who is good or not...so it is pointless...the only motivation to convince people to worship has allways been man driven, because each person DESIRES that others believe EXACTLY the way they do...and perhaps the perks to ego and material gain, and power no doubt play a major motivation...so good that others who gain nothing are supporting the religious elite
MadMAn12gauge 3 months ago
@lederereddy I don't beleive in Satan either, so I have no idea why you would even bring that up. You are trying to make Atheism into something that it is not, again answering out of ignorance.
jdale1 3 months ago
@lederereddy I don't Satan in either.
jdale1 3 months ago
The funny thing about knowledge is we can learn more but no one can say there's no more to learn. Especially when it comes to immaterial, eternal or spiritual realms of power and influence. If quantum mechanics prove anything, they prove there's more to whats going on in the physical world than what meets the eye. The Bible says "All things are held together by the power of His (Jesus') might. Whata Coinkydinky! That's what we find! Nothing or The Invisible One holding it all together.
lederereddy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lederereddy So basically there are "way more of us than there are of you" so we are right and you are wrong. Stop the press! There are way more Hindus than you, so they are right. They worship their Gods because the KNOW them to exist. Care to call out other religions while playing your little "strength in numbers game"? 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
jdale1 3 months ago
@jdale1 I'm including Hindu's, Muslim's, Satanist's for fudge's sake. Pay attention. Or quit trying to argue. The whole point went over your head because your stuck inside a world that you've decided is the only possibility. The Devil has to work at deceiving people smart enough to figure out the basic's of life. Atheist's are so dense all he has to do is sit around until it's too late for you. Hopefully he gets bored and gives you a dose of his reality, just to watch you grovel for God in fear.
lederereddy 3 months ago
@jdale1 That's right! There's more than one way to test spiritual realities. Get in Satan's face and dare him to try to make a believer out of you. Be persistent enough and I'm sure he'll accommodate your inquisitiveness. Haha.... I'd pay to see that. "Atheist challenges Satan's existence and ends up in the nut house." I bet you think insanity is all biological. Bullshit. People mess around with the wrong spirits all the time but some don't come back like they were.
lederereddy 3 months ago
@lederereddy Either way it neither proves nor disproves a creator. I'm more comfortable in stating I don't know rather than asserting one is more plausible than the other. Right now, at least with science we have something at least that is tangible than making extraordinary claims and guesses.
jdale1 3 months ago
@lederereddy "you're playing stupid" Which is the more honest answer? Making something up or saying I don't know? The value system is a response to your positive claim. It's not an assertion for God's existence, you are the one making the claim.
jdale1 3 months ago
@lederereddy "There's no laps in the logic of creation having a cause." Where would like to start? No evidence of the creator destroys all possible logic of creationism. The fossil record trumps most of creationism theories. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact, still should not suggest God's nonexistence. If "everything" has been intelligently designed, how would we know? Do we have examples of something not intelligently designed to compare them too?
jdale1 3 months ago
@lederereddy "but it is evidence of His existence" What exactly is THE evidence? You stated earlier that you can't prove God's existence, and in the next breath you claim to know that he does. If you have this knowledge, why not share it? That's what "we" want to know because we lack the belief. It has nothing to do with hate, that is another ignorant assumption on your part. You seem to only want to answer the easy questions that put fourth to you and ignore or dance around the challenging one
jdale1 3 months ago
@jdale1 "Gee, what does that sound like? "
?
My ex girlfriend and conceived a child in 2006 but the baby miscarried. I have no proof of that but I know what I saw. What you've decided is that anyone who's seen more than what can be explained in physical terms has suddenly become incredible? Why? What motive would I have? It's just spiritual information that you have closed your eyes to.If God calls you, respond! Try humility instead of pride. It works!. Seek and you will find. There's no excuse.
lederereddy 3 months ago
@lederereddy "but I know what I saw" What did you see? I have decided that extrodinary claims demand extrodinary evidence. As I asked you earlier, do you believe me when I claim I have an invisible magic elf on my head until my claim is proven false, or do you disbelieve my claim until it's proven true? Your belief is either physical or it's mental. If it's all mental, why would you or any one else expect me to believe you?
jdale1 3 months ago
@jdale1 Not that I think you're intentionally trying to be so narrow minded and ingenuous about a subject that you're obviously more interested in than you want to admit, but you aren't being objective. Someone who sincerely wants to know the truth about God could start by being honest about himself. I guarantee this. If you write a list of those you've harmed somehow, completely ignore everything they've done to you and humbly make amends for emotional, financial & sexual errors in Christ's->
lederereddy 3 months ago
@jdale1 In Christ's name, your life will change. But you can't do that, I'll bet. Not without God. You will succumb to making excuses, downplaying and blame shifting. But mostly, you'd never dare to do it in the first place. Why not? It's not because you don't have a list and don't owe amends to someone, somewhere. It's because you're human. A broken, selfish, misguided, liar, thief and cheat. Don't take it personal. Everyone is. That's why Christ went to the cross. Not Buddha. Not Mohammed....
lederereddy 3 months ago
@jdale1 Not Zeus or any other god including yourself.
"No evidence of the creator destroys all possible logic of creationism"
Creation was created! My understanding of the do's and don'ts of engineering, design, information and their sources rule out all possibility of creation occurring without the creator being aware of everything He has done. Especially life. If you want to pretend all this just magically happened and it just happens to look like engineering? I guess ignorance is an option..
lederereddy 3 months ago
@lederereddy By your reasoning, I should have no excuse not believe in other religions claims and or God(s) because you and or I have zero evidence whether they are true or not. The Christian and the Muslim believe their God is the God, and that everyone else's claims are false. For that reason alone, why should that be the answer? Why not seek for the answers of the Hindu Gods? It's same thing.
jdale1 3 months ago