@petecantsing Your claims can only be justified with the (accepted) gospels. Unfortunately, they were written years after Jesus had died, and by people who weren't even eyewitnesses to any of Jesus' life. If you want to base your whole life on something like that, go right ahead, but you certainly shouldn't be surprised when no one who chooses to critically think about such things takes you seriously.
@petecantsing I'll point out just one of the inaccuracies in Stein's crusade of misinformation. He paints "Darwinism" as the cause of the holocaust as if artificial selection hadn't been around for 1000's of years before Hitler. Humans have been breeding animals & crops for favorable traits throughout history. Hitler wanted to do the same. He believed the Aryan race was created by god and "polluting" it by mixing races was a sin against god. According to Stein, Hitler based it all on Darwin.
@petecantsing Atheism is a religion the same as not collecting stamps is a hobby. I'll make the assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't believe in the tooth fiary, let's call it atoothfairyism. Does that mean that atoothfairyism is a religion for you? The tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Capt. Kirk and the list of fictional characters goes on and on. Is not believing in each of those also a religion? Again, I'll assume that your answer would be no. So why is not believing in god a religion?
Irreducible complexity is just the watchmaker argument reworked to fit biology it is not based on tested hypothosis just a failed argument comparing man made objects to natural occurring phenomena!
@petecantsing I will relent that Catholicism didn't really begin to take hold until the 4th century. However, nothing you have said can be substantiated via an independent historical source. Consider that the Bible was written a centuries before you were born, how can you possibly know if it is legit? Do you not know the irony of your last sentence? "It's a matter of what is you WANT to believe, isn't it?" The burden of proof is on the one making outrageous claims, I know that I know nothing.
Atheism is to religion as "critical thinking" is to a book from 2000 years ago that men wrote to gain power over their fellow man. Suggesting a fully unscientific answer is a better one than evolution because it isn't 100% explained is asinine.
Thank you for being calm and rational in your viewpoints. Too often I see atheists become zealous and fundamental in their approach and end up being more obnoxious than the Christians they criticize for the same behaviour.
As for the irreducible complexity argument, I like your synopsis of the rebuttal. My response has always been taking their example of the mousetrap, where you can't remove any components or it won't work. If you take off the release lever and catch, it's a bag clip.
The human eye is not the best eye in nature, yet it is the foundation of this argument. Once again, there's human ego masquerading as humility in the eyes of religion.
@ChipArgyle I tell my fundie mates this all the time but they just say all sorts of crap to back pedal out of it. We would be screwed if left in the middle of the desert with no wepons, you probably wouldn't last the night.
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
@Hubbelkent: very well. Survival was a matter of energy. As an engineer I can tell you that energy states move from higher to lower. Think that over. Also, here's a question for you. Do you find "mind" in the universe? If not, you're admitting to not having one, in which case you've given up the tool you need for abstract thought. That should free you of the burden of religion and further postings.
@isleofmann1 Oh look, more logical fallacies. Is it so hard for you to envision the human mind as a manifestation of our physiology brought on by an evolutionary process favoring such a trait? Intelligence was our niche and the "mind" is a trait subject to natural selection like any other. We can have the ability of reason without everything else in the universe being subject to it or something similar.
@isleofmann1 And wow, right over your head. That was not at all the point I was trying to make. I wasn't saying survival was a matter of energy, I was saying natural selection favored those that best acquired energy and that such a thing does not necessitate the existence of a mind nor a survival drive but originally happened just by virtue of chemical and physical properties.
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
And if you don't believe that evolution created the human eye, you must ask the question why he gave species such as the mantis shrimp eyes so much better than those of his "chosen" species.
Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" should be required reading for all these people clinging to irreducible complexity . In fact, I think everybody who can read should read it.
Darwinism says that when a beneficial attribute develops, the species or variant keeps this attribute. Does nature "know" what's beneficial? Beneficial for survival maybe? Whence came this "purpose" to survive? When the first components of life amazingly came together out of the slime referred to in Genesis, did survival instinct just come with it? Whence came this "purpose" to survive? It implies "mind". How did "mind' get into stupid matter?
@isleofmann1 I don't quite understand your question, but basicly I think you interpreted it wrong.. It's because a evolution that causes a species to have qualities that are very usefull in the actual world, that species will have a easyer life, and therefor more chances of survival. If a species has more chances of survival it will less likely dissapear than another one. All species go towards extinction if they don't evolve beneficial to the evolution of their environement
So the species don't stop evolving when reaches a good attribute, they still evolve, but, when the evolved species is less good than the one with the "correct" attribute, this evolution will not live long, while the old one will. Humans still have mutations now and then (people with 12 fingers etc), but we help the ones that are weak(for example downs syndrome) etc, so our species is pretty rare because also the weaker will survive.
@isleofmann1 "Whence." Cut that out. You sound ridiculous. You're following a logical fallacy. An organism that has an imperative to survive despite a lack of sentience does not necessitate its creation by a "mind" nor does it say that the organism itself/simple matter has "mind." Life requires energy; natural selection favored bacteria that would naturally gravitate toward nutrients (by chemical processes) and purpose evolved later from competition; it had nothing to do with willful survival.
@types10000 -whether you were in a program, a matrix, or something greater, you wouldn't know it, and you wouldn't believe it even if you were told that you were in one. Trying to prove it would be futile, but it would still be the truth.
@hanspeterpitsch -If you put me in a virtual reality simulator as a baby and I never knew any other world other than the virtual world you had me plugged into, how would I go about proving YOU exist? Do you exist? If the Sims in Sim City started arguing that you didn't exist, would they be right? How could they prove you exist scientifically? They can't, because people in our reality designed their science and their reality. Programmers do not live under the laws of their own programs.
"They can't, because people in our reality designed their science and their reality. Programmers do not live under the laws of their own programs."
- yes, the fact is that all we have to work with is evidence we gather in our world, if there is no evidence to support a god then there is no logical basis for us to beleive in one.
or in terms of your example:
- it's not logical to assume we are in a computer program by default
@Bobweiserbudman If it's impossible to distinguish if there is some "higher" being than you, then what point is there believing it does? Sure the truth on its own right is worth searching for but be honest, you religious people say you know for 100% that god exists. How is that so? If you can't detect it in anyway?
@Bobweiserbudman The difference is that we can observe the atom and messure or test it's properties, god on the other hand, has nothing at all to back it up. It's just an idea, but never ever was there any shred of evidence found for it. That's why I don't believe in it, and that makes me an atheist.
If your logic would make sense, science would have discovered god and it wouldn't even be a question if he exists or not. Or it will in the future. But until then, there's no reason to believe.
@shady9321 Atheists reference theories as facts daily on here. It's not a new phenomenon. Like when they tell me abiogenesis is a fact. Uhhh... No it's not. How do you test something to prove it, when it supposedly happened billions of years ago?
@Bobweiserbudman Read some science books, you might eventually understand how it works. Pluto is a good example. We know how long it takes to make a full turn, yet we don't know pluto long enough to have witnessed a full turn. Science has methods that enable us to find such things out. It's like the atom. Just because you can't see it with your bare eyes doesn't mean we can't know it exists and what it's properties. Same with abiogenesis and the big bang and such things. You know what I mean?
@iiwatcher -actually the Bible makes many claims that were outrageous at the time, and it predicts the future boldly and repeatedly. The Quran and Hindu Bible, i've read. They offer me no prophecy, salvation, or scientific facts. The Bible does, like when Elijah tells the sun worshipers that the sun isn't God, but just a star. Good guess for thousands of years ago.
@gillyssquashball -you're also welcome to make your case for where the Bible is wrong. It's should be easy. Type a chapter and verse, then show where it's wrong.
@gillyssquashball -it does say this though. "the Earth hangs upon nothing." all other ancient belief systems believed a physical object such as a man, turtle, etc, held the Earth up. ;-)
If Israel doesn't become a nation, the Bible is wrong. It happened 1948. If Jerusalem isn't divided, the Bible is wrong. It is. Muslim, Jewish, and Christian quarters. If a religion doesn't begin to take Christianity's place that preaches God, but that Jesus isn't Christ, then the Bible's wrong. It's called Islam. And more.... Not that hard is it? Seek and you shall find...
Wow!!! I see ti now! All I had to do was cherry pick the bible and ignore all the bits where it was wrong. like the earth being a flat disc with a dome on top, and hey presto there is a god!
@Ledwix God did not create good. He IS good. He cannot sin or lie. He is the same now as He has always been. How do we know that the soul is not matter? True, we cannot see or touch it. That does not make it not a real thing. Every scientist will admit that not all matter can be seen. Familiar with dark matter? God did not create man to be evil. Man chose to be that way. Every bad thing in this world is a result of man's choice to sin.
@exportpro99 if we are made in the image of god, and god IS good, and cannot lie or sin, then how is it that we can lie or sin? logically we shouldn't be able to do such things. if we aren't accurate images of god, then we are simply failed creations or experiment of god? then why do we praise him? how does religion justify the laws of chemistry and laws of thermodynamics which are provable? another thing is, if god is infinite, how does religion account for the infinity paradoxes?
@harrygrapes We must have a differing views on the word image. I interpret image as something visual. Meaning God created us to look similar to what he looks like. A head, two arms, two legs and a torso. Things like dogs, cats, cows, fish... etc. were not created in his image. What laws of chemistry and thermodynamics does the bible need to justify? Not sure where you are going with that. You keep using the word religion. I do not. I have no use for religion. I'm all about the bible.
@exportpro99 matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. energy remains the same in a system. since nothing can create or destroy matter and energy, then logically god cannot, unless he is infinite. then god must be capable of doing anything, right? god must be able to create and destroy? can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? that's a paradox. how does the bible account for that? how do religions account for that?
@linkz101 God's commandments were for us to follow. God can't sin because sins are only committed against God. God cannot sin against himself. Much like He says I am the Lord your God, you will have no other gods before me. This was not a commandment for God to follow. It was for man to follow. God can do with us as he wishes. He created every last one of us. We are His to take whenever He wants. He gave us life, and He can take it away.
@iiwatcher It may sound that way because you know nothing about Him. I am indeed His servant. And serving Him appeals to me because spending eternity in His presence sure beats the alternative.
@exportpro99 I know plenty about what your bible says and it's horrible. Your last sentence proves my point. What's the alternative? Eternal torment without end or any who do not believe. Think about that and what it means, & what it implies about god, if you have any rational thought left in your head. That's the god you serve. To actually desire to be a mindless slave to a horrible dictator is to be sick in the head.
@iiwatcher Romans 1:19-22, Romans 8:6–7, Psalm 14:1. Look those up. Do they apply to you? Matthew 10:14. In case you dont understand this one. Do not confuse a lack of a response with not having one. It's because I will no longer waste my time. God does not want me to. Matthew 7:6
I know those verses. Sot? Spewing verses from a bronze age fairy tale book is not a valid counter. Simple thought experiment: a Muslim can do the same, does that make him right? How about any other religious book? See how using scripture is meaningless? Also, stop cherry picking verses & read them ALL. Your hit&run tactic only shows you're a coward, unwilling to engage in rational thought or debate. You're welcome to your delusions bc of your fear of death but don't impose them on others.
@iiwatcher The sun is old, it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to our "sophisticated, modern day and age". Read the Bible, compare to other "scriptures", if you haven't, your arguments are not "valid counters" in my oppinion.
@PirateXzibit Ridiculous analogy. Your biased, uninformed opinion is irrelevant. What matters is what is true. That is, the bible is just another religious book written by people. Your "compare to other scriptures" challenge is laughable. You do realize that other holy books use the exact same claim? By your own methodology you would have to therefore accept ALL scriptures & gods as true. Basic logic that will no doubt elude you, or you will dodge it.
@PatrioticEagle50 first of all, YOU cannot create life on your own. Only God can. You can father/mother a child but science tells us nobody can do that on their own. Look at it this way. As a father of three young boys (all of which were created by God), they have rules that they must obey. Because I know what is best for them (as God does for us). I do not owe them an explanation as to why they have rules. By your logic, the rules I set for them I should follow as well? I think not.
@exportpro99 Humans don't get credit for creating a baby? That means God gets credit for creating it? By that standpoint, anything humans do...well, God gets credit for creating it. Then God should get credit for all the evils man has committed, too, yes? So God created evil. Okay, by your logic, he's not worth worshiping. I'd like to see you get out of that one. "But he's perfectly holy." Yes according to your theology, but there is a contradiction here if you say he created EVERYTHING.
@Ledwix God did not create evil or sin. Evil or sin is not a creation. It is not something you can touch. It does not take up space and it is not matter. Every "Thing" was created by Him. Sin and evil are results of our actions. Since the beginning, God has always given us the choice to follow Him or to not follow Him. As far as children. Yes, two people can produce a child. But only God can create life from nothing.
@exportpro99 Okay, "souls" are not matter either. Did God not create souls? Did God not create good?
Any time you say God created everything, you're saying he designed the whole timeline of spacetime with the relevant parameters for us to make decisions, including creating the inevitable ability to do evil....so if he was all-knowing, he did create evil.
@exportpro99 You don't know much about your own religion do you? God created EVERYTHING. Before god there was nothing but god. That's a basic premise of your holy book. he also created Satan who was an angel in heaven. HEAVEN. That means sin ORIGINATED IN HEAVEN in a creature that was supposed to be perfect, which means god created sin. At the very least, sin got into heaven right under god's nose. God sure screwed up on that one! Yet god is not responsible for sin in the 1st place? FAIL.
If Atheist really want to know why Theists are able to refute them, you would need to watch videos such as "Are we just simulations", or "What is real", but Atheists don't like ideas like that because those ideas make Science more than a programmed set of rules that do what they are designed to do and those laws suddenly can be altered.
@Bobweiserbudman No, the ice ages were periods where glaciers covered a much larger area of the Earth than they do today, but there have never been glaciers at the equator. More importantly, a thin layer of ice covering the entire Earth would entail vastly less water than a global flood to a depth of several thousand feet. Think of it this way: How much paint would you need to paint a chair? How much paint would you need to completely fill a tub big enough to completely submerge the chair in it?
@bcgonynor Never been glaciers at the equator? Are you sure? What about the tillites found at equatorial paleolatitudes? Snowball Earth is still a matter of speculation, but I don't think we can rule it out.
@NevilleRhysBarnes It's probable that such a state existed in the pre-Cambrian, but I assumed you were talking about the Cenozoic ice ages since these would be more applicable to an apology for the Deluge myths. Even if such a state had existed, I think the profusion of flora and fauna since that time would render it highly unlikely to recur from the Mesozoic on. Not to mention, as I said, a flood would require much more water than a snowball - too much water to have ever been feasible.
@bcgonynor Fair enough. (Yes, I was thinking of the two possible snowball earth scenarios from before the Cambrian.)
I don't see how anyone can tie the last glacial (which ended circa 11,000 years ago) to Noah's flood, supposedly about 5-6000 years ago. But that's Biblical literalists for you.
Ancient wheels matching ancient Egyptian wheels covered with choral? Telling children the tooth fairy left the quarter might be a simple answer, but it wouldn't be true
@Mossinator5000Deluxe Not only has the entire planet NOT been covered with water all at once, it's impossible. There simply isn't enough water on the planet to accomplish this feat. Water is a finite resource and even if ice caps melted, it still wouldn't be enough water to submerge all the land.
If you do believe in the flood, you not only have to account for where the extra water came from, you have to account for where that extra water went.
@HonestMan 395. You're welcome to give your sources. I've actually seen things that would prove otherwise, such as Egyptian chariots found at the bottom of the Red Sea, the early churches of Egypt, and the flood has been disproven? Even Atheist scientist say this world was once covered with water. Fish fossils at top of mountains, right?
@Mossinator5000Deluxe The world was never covered by water. Different parts have been covered at different times and areas that were once underwater have risen due to forces in the earth's crust.
There are many ways to get a chariot into the sea apart from driving it into a huge rift in the ocean. You can take chariots on boats which can sink for example. Or you could be transporting chariot wheels. There are more simple explanations than those in the Bible.
@Mossinator5000Deluxe You have NOT seen things that would prove otherwise. The "archaeologist" who supposedly discovered those chariots and a whole mess of other Biblical "artifacts" has been fully discredited and proved to be a liar and charlatan. His name was Ron Wyatt and he was a nurse. His findings have been fully and completely debunked but apologist sites STILL tout his findings as proof of Biblical authenticity.
Before you start citing supposed scientists, research your source.
The eye no more evolves because the eye is not the creator of DNA. DNA is what forms the eye in all it's light processing totality. There is no guessing work evolution going on. It's creation by fiat. Knowledge to create life existed in the beginning, "Let there be light"! The "chance god" and "random god" is a fantasy by atheist to express there depravity.
@DiscoRByrno Jesus said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Can you not understand that simple passage? Throw a stone if you have commited NO SIN in your life. It's very simple to understand.
"You don't get to interpret who the law can be applied to"
I never said that. I said who the law is applided BY. Not TO. Now I think you're probably a spam, not a real person.... hehe
@DiscoRByrno "You reject the scientific method and rely on the bible." - I don't know where you get that from. I believe in a decent scientific method, which is not yours, nether the New Atheists'. You have no knowledge of the scientific method at all and are a moron. You can't have been a Christian. You may have CALLED yourself a Christian once, but I doubt you were.
Well, I've taken the Bible literally, why do you say it's my own interpretation?
@cashernandes1 Quote: "Well, I've taken the Bible literally, why do you say it's my own interpretation?"
Because the whole of the bible is interpretation.
Fantastical and imaginative interpretation and manipulation of the myths and legends contained in the bible, is the only way that any form of even pseudo-sense can be made of it's accuracy, after a proper examination of the totally unsupported and unsupportable text.
@boriwepaa. Nearly all of the cornerstone events of the bible (the Exodus, The flood, The nativity Etc.) have been disproven, by independent verifiable historical and archaelogical investigation.
Not only that, but the church itself has accepted the stories purely as allegorical moral guidance legends for hundreds of years.
quote: "It has served us well, this Myth of Christ." Pope Leo X
My Brother-in-law first told me about it and I've investigated it since. He was a C of E Vicar.
@DiscoRByrno "God is not Jesus, so either it's God's word or it's Jesus' word."
Have you actually READ anything of the Gospels? Or just those verses about murdering/stoning people to death and stuff? Do you know ANYTHING about Christianity at all? What a retard you are...
Jesus IS God's WORD incarnated. Read John chapter 1 verse 1 (which shows you haven't even begun reading one of the canonical Gospels). Did you know that God's three persons, darling? Whatever Jesus says is what God says.
@DiscoRByrno Wow, what a dummie. Your knowledge of what the scientific method is about is really pitiful. Science relies upon certain propositions, which rely upon other propositions, and so forth, down to the point where the first proposition was self-evident. I think you're homo sapiens because I know I AM. That knowledge doesn't come from science, it's self-evident, it comes from within yourself.
@DiscoRByrno However, I believe you're probably a real person because I know I AM a real person. If I am a real person, then I know it highly unlikely that you aren't. That's a SELF-evident truth, silly. A self-evident truth cannot be proven by science, but rather science RELIES upon self-evident truths in order to make sense. Science is not omnipotent, as Mr. Peter Atkins claims it is.
You can't make generalizations like that. Science does NOT rely upon self-evident truths in order to make sense. It relies on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is the system we humans use in everyday life. The scientific method is the system of making observations and conducting experiments to reach scientific conclusions, a similar concept to the steps of a lab experiment:
If "being able to type" is the definite prove that you can give that you have a brain and a consciousness, then I can only assume that by "uneducated" you're talking about yourself. ;)
You may be a computer, or a computer program, designed to give stupid answers (by best guess so far). Even if I saw you in person that wouldn't be a proof you possess a real brain, let alone consciousness. Some things cannot be proven my the scientific method...
@DiscoRByrno If Cristianity is true, then those teachings wouldn't be biased at all. At the end of the day it is about believing or not. I believe it because historical facts back up the Gospel.
If someone kills in the name of God they can't be Christians because true Christians follow the Word of God, which is Jesus Christ. He never said murdering was cool. ;)
Being able to type is no proof that you have a brain at all, you might be a robot and not know it. How can you prove it? ;)
@DiscoRByrno If you really believe that the State is good and for the best of everyone, I can do nothing but wish you good luck in the coming years... If someone kills in the name of God, they're obviously not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, which in turn makes them NOT Christians. And if it the reality of Jesus is true and a fact, why would it be a mere opinion? And you haven't addressed this: why should I believe you have a brain if I've never seen it? How convenient...
@DiscoRByrno "Christians is that they don't even know how exactly their beliefs hurt the human species as a whole..."
It's not the belief that hurts the human species, it's HUMANS themselves who do that. One may call himself a Christian (as Hitler did) and not be one at all. Indeed there are very very few true Christians out there. Religions may well bring trouble upon the world, but the teachings of Jesus, when followed strictly, can never do that.
@DiscoRByrno "then your parents put a biased twist on it"... It's better than having the State control mass populations, as they're successfully doing you. We were meant to be taught by our parents, not the State, trust me.
Anyway. God is a self-evident truth, who ever opposes that has the burden of proof. Let me give you an example: following your reasoning, I should not believe you have a brain. I've never seen it or touched it, therefore you must not have one. That's plain ridiculous.
@DiscoRByrno You're making a claim: that God DOESN'T exist. You need to proove that. The saddest thing about atheists is that they don't even know what exactly their worldview entails...
If you get your knowledge from school, then you're CONTROLLED by the State, silly. That's why people who are home-schooled are generally superior than other human beings... as far as knowledge is concerned. :P
@DiscoRByrno Your knowledge comes from SCHOOL, really? Wow, I pity you now. What has he refuted? You can't refute reality in much the same way you can't God.
@DiscoRByrno It's you who should come up with proof, otherwise you're a mere agnostic, and a very bad one indeed... Be honest to yourself, you won't be able to maintain your "atheist" worldview for very long.
@DiscoRByrno What an iditot. Logic and reason only point to God, not the other way around. Science can only account for very little in terms of providing evidence for what is real or not. Your materialistic views of the world are downright puerile, Atheism = a teenage fit. Grow up already...
People seem to have this odd idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, but in reality this doesn't pan out. Backs that have issues in a few decades, knees with multiple issues and easy to damage, hearing and vision loss, and so on... There's no miraculous design, just organisms doing what they can with what they have.
@CrazyBluePrime Computer processors, neural networks, robotics, nanotechnology, dominate the modern world. Yet no one disputes those are designed. Yet biological life which uses those same technologies analogously with a billion times more complexity wasn't designed? "The fool in his heart says there is no God".
@zzap999 Well, your bible verse really is irrelevant, and you're just saying that something is so complex a deity had to do it... that's not an answer. What predictive power does your hypothesis have? How could it be falsified? It's an empty answer and has no business in the scientific community. Human beings are nowhere near perfectly designed and all the evidence suggests that we had earlier ancestors in common with other primates. Sure, you could sneak a god in your explanation, but why?
@CrazyBluePrime "Like begets like and kind begets kind". Uh, predictive power? Hypothesis? Sorry, but it's really happening. Open your eyes and stop watching re-runs of Avatar.
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2.
nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
3.
a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
How about human cancer cells becoming a distinct species? I'm pretty sure that gets rid of your 'kinds' hypothesis. Helacyton gartleri is the species that was the offshoot from cervical cancer cells over the course of forty years. It now has a different number of chromosomes than humans and can live outside a human body. I recommend looking at the evidence for evolution at talkorigins.
@zzap999 [2] the reason they cannot interbreed with the species they were derived from is because they are single cells, and therefore cannot produce either sperm or eggs (and certainly cannot gestate a growing foetus inside them). This has nothing to do with any mutations they have experienced.
@DiscoRByrno If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
@cashernandes1 yeah they have no ground to stand on. how do they know they are speaking the true if everything the believe come from material from space. I say this to them if there is no God we all lose, we die and that is it for us, but if the bible is true and there is a God that loves us we who believe will be save and does who does not wanna believe you know what will happen.. God does not want us to go to hell it is a chose they make. God bless you :)
@boriwepaa Yes! They want "scientific evidence for God". There's no such thing, and there can't be. A particular science is supposed to provide evidence for a very TINY frame of reality, whereas God encompasses ALL reality. The existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, timeless, omnipresent God is proven by that very definition. Reality itself is the ultimate proof of God's existence. God bless you! =)
@DiscoRByrno We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
@DiscoRByrno In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.
@DiscoRByrno You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
@DiscoRByrno Why my friend? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
@DiscoRByrno now If the you states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.
@DiscoRByrno If you states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds, since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory.
@DiscoRByrno now you say my logic is wrong let see examples of the laws of logic? Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.. now u atheist account for the laws of logic
@DiscoRByrno "Who created God?" Again, the 1st law confirms energy
is eternal. Before the universe began, there must have existed an ORIGINAL, initial, energy source which has ALWAYS existed. This initial, original, energy source IS God.
@DiscoRByrno Atheists may say " Well, all of the energy in the universe could have derived itself from multiple energy sources, not just a single one".That maybe true, but it still poses a serious problem. Multiple or single unintelligent energy source(s) would most likely result in chaos and disorder. Atheists may also say " Well, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics God may eventually disorganize and
deteriorate overtime if he is composed of energy".
@DiscoRByrno Its not UNRESONABLE to assume this ENORMUS
energy was the creator GOD. Listen, we reasonably have 2 options to determine what WAS this powerful always existing energy. It COULD be dumb unconscious, and vague energy source. However this seems extremely illogical considering we can observe complexity
, order, and design throughout the universe. The most logical answer
would be that and intelligent mind constructed the universe, or a God its as simple as that.
@DiscoRByrno This energy source that was present BEFORE the Universe had to have power beyond anything we could ever imagine. Considering it had it had to transfer its energy unto the TRILLIONS of Stars and
Billions of galaxies. A separate ETERNAL energy source that exists OUTSIDE of the universe had to have supplied or transferred its
energy onto the universe (because we know the universe didn’t
@DiscoRByrno Nothing can only create nothing before the Universe began something must have always existed. ITS ENERGY. Energy is ETERNAL. The 1st law of thermodynamics confirms that. The Law states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed” No beginning or uncreated and no end.
That’s the definition of eternal. You also can’t claim that this energy always existed IN the known universe because Science has proven the Universe didn’t always exist.
@DiscoRByrno to be fair.. god might exist, in the grand scheme of things we really have no clue wtf is going on. but there is no justifiable reason to accept that the bible is anything other than a steaming pile of shite, lol.
@DiscoRByrno First of all matter does just randomly appear. Virtual particles that then annihilate each other unless one part gets sucked into a black hole, then the other one remains. I believe in God but yet i know far more in the scientific community than you do. You make no sense when you brought up geometry. There's more theory's than the big bang. If you wana find out if im right or not pray to God to give you the answers. Study the bible, and look to science for help too.
@DiscoRByrno If you refute my idea... Absolutely i can refute yours. How in the world do you know whats true or not. Your right we both cant be wrong. It's either some one created the universe or some one didnt. 10th grade geometry?? "Since you (Cant) be right, then that means I am right" What???? What does finding the area of shapes have to do with anything. If you dont know if your right than how can any one be wrong? I was just trying to help you in your argument. It's not valid
@DiscoRByrno Sorry for responding to a 3 month old comment. Dont ever use this argument again tho... Because the universe was technically created from nothing if you wana say. Where did all the rocks and gasses come from that created life as we know it now. It goes the same both ways. Either God always existed or rocks and gases that always existed, that are non living created us.
@petecantsing Your claims can only be justified with the (accepted) gospels. Unfortunately, they were written years after Jesus had died, and by people who weren't even eyewitnesses to any of Jesus' life. If you want to base your whole life on something like that, go right ahead, but you certainly shouldn't be surprised when no one who chooses to critically think about such things takes you seriously.
hoodratstuff11 2 weeks ago
@petecantsing I'll point out just one of the inaccuracies in Stein's crusade of misinformation. He paints "Darwinism" as the cause of the holocaust as if artificial selection hadn't been around for 1000's of years before Hitler. Humans have been breeding animals & crops for favorable traits throughout history. Hitler wanted to do the same. He believed the Aryan race was created by god and "polluting" it by mixing races was a sin against god. According to Stein, Hitler based it all on Darwin.
pyrobryan 1 month ago
@petecantsing Atheism is a religion the same as not collecting stamps is a hobby. I'll make the assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't believe in the tooth fiary, let's call it atoothfairyism. Does that mean that atoothfairyism is a religion for you? The tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Capt. Kirk and the list of fictional characters goes on and on. Is not believing in each of those also a religion? Again, I'll assume that your answer would be no. So why is not believing in god a religion?
pyrobryan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Irreducible complexity is just the watchmaker argument reworked to fit biology it is not based on tested hypothosis just a failed argument comparing man made objects to natural occurring phenomena!
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
@petecantsing I will relent that Catholicism didn't really begin to take hold until the 4th century. However, nothing you have said can be substantiated via an independent historical source. Consider that the Bible was written a centuries before you were born, how can you possibly know if it is legit? Do you not know the irony of your last sentence? "It's a matter of what is you WANT to believe, isn't it?" The burden of proof is on the one making outrageous claims, I know that I know nothing.
xPureEx 2 months ago
Atheism is to religion as "critical thinking" is to a book from 2000 years ago that men wrote to gain power over their fellow man. Suggesting a fully unscientific answer is a better one than evolution because it isn't 100% explained is asinine.
xPureEx 2 months ago
Thank you for being calm and rational in your viewpoints. Too often I see atheists become zealous and fundamental in their approach and end up being more obnoxious than the Christians they criticize for the same behaviour.
As for the irreducible complexity argument, I like your synopsis of the rebuttal. My response has always been taking their example of the mousetrap, where you can't remove any components or it won't work. If you take off the release lever and catch, it's a bag clip.
Nerfi 2 months ago
The human eye is not the best eye in nature, yet it is the foundation of this argument. Once again, there's human ego masquerading as humility in the eyes of religion.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle I tell my fundie mates this all the time but they just say all sorts of crap to back pedal out of it. We would be screwed if left in the middle of the desert with no wepons, you probably wouldn't last the night.
SuperJBrowne 2 months ago
For once I thought "Let the old guy die in peace knowing that perhaps he could get a better life in his next life" - like we say ignorance is bliss
shakilmujeeb 5 months ago
I love the show, but I think I love the music even more.
mrfrenik 5 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience
@mrfrenik What is the name of the song at the beginning
Kdanc86 4 months ago
@Kdanc86 Tears For Fears "Everybody Wants To Rule The World"
mrfrenik 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
@Hubbelkent: very well. Survival was a matter of energy. As an engineer I can tell you that energy states move from higher to lower. Think that over. Also, here's a question for you. Do you find "mind" in the universe? If not, you're admitting to not having one, in which case you've given up the tool you need for abstract thought. That should free you of the burden of religion and further postings.
isleofmann1 5 months ago
@isleofmann1 Oh look, more logical fallacies. Is it so hard for you to envision the human mind as a manifestation of our physiology brought on by an evolutionary process favoring such a trait? Intelligence was our niche and the "mind" is a trait subject to natural selection like any other. We can have the ability of reason without everything else in the universe being subject to it or something similar.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
@isleofmann1 And wow, right over your head. That was not at all the point I was trying to make. I wasn't saying survival was a matter of energy, I was saying natural selection favored those that best acquired energy and that such a thing does not necessitate the existence of a mind nor a survival drive but originally happened just by virtue of chemical and physical properties.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isleofmann1 As far as the energy comment, the ultimate fate of all energy is entropic heat death. However, that does not preclude energy from moving in subsidiary cycles. I assume the point you're trying to falsely argue is how could complexity form in a thermodynamically entropic system where lower energy states are favored? Are you implying that high energy states aren't attainable because lower ones are favored? Because that's stupid and I'll tell you why if that's what you're saying.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
And if you don't believe that evolution created the human eye, you must ask the question why he gave species such as the mantis shrimp eyes so much better than those of his "chosen" species.
Thatmakessense356 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" should be required reading for all these people clinging to irreducible complexity . In fact, I think everybody who can read should read it.
JMUDoc 6 months ago
anyone ever seen the movie "little nicky"?? this guy sounds like nicky :p:p
amendolara69 6 months ago
Darwinism says that when a beneficial attribute develops, the species or variant keeps this attribute. Does nature "know" what's beneficial? Beneficial for survival maybe? Whence came this "purpose" to survive? When the first components of life amazingly came together out of the slime referred to in Genesis, did survival instinct just come with it? Whence came this "purpose" to survive? It implies "mind". How did "mind' get into stupid matter?
isleofmann1 6 months ago
@isleofmann1 I don't quite understand your question, but basicly I think you interpreted it wrong.. It's because a evolution that causes a species to have qualities that are very usefull in the actual world, that species will have a easyer life, and therefor more chances of survival. If a species has more chances of survival it will less likely dissapear than another one. All species go towards extinction if they don't evolve beneficial to the evolution of their environement
.
amendolara69 6 months ago
So the species don't stop evolving when reaches a good attribute, they still evolve, but, when the evolved species is less good than the one with the "correct" attribute, this evolution will not live long, while the old one will. Humans still have mutations now and then (people with 12 fingers etc), but we help the ones that are weak(for example downs syndrome) etc, so our species is pretty rare because also the weaker will survive.
amendolara69 6 months ago
@isleofmann1 "Whence." Cut that out. You sound ridiculous. You're following a logical fallacy. An organism that has an imperative to survive despite a lack of sentience does not necessitate its creation by a "mind" nor does it say that the organism itself/simple matter has "mind." Life requires energy; natural selection favored bacteria that would naturally gravitate toward nutrients (by chemical processes) and purpose evolved later from competition; it had nothing to do with willful survival.
HubbellKent 5 months ago
Yeah we don't have any reason to think that the eye couldn't have evolved.
jeremythehuman 6 months ago
The caller = every old guy I have ever heard in my life
bigredphenom 7 months ago
@types10000 -whether you were in a program, a matrix, or something greater, you wouldn't know it, and you wouldn't believe it even if you were told that you were in one. Trying to prove it would be futile, but it would still be the truth.
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
@hanspeterpitsch -If you put me in a virtual reality simulator as a baby and I never knew any other world other than the virtual world you had me plugged into, how would I go about proving YOU exist? Do you exist? If the Sims in Sim City started arguing that you didn't exist, would they be right? How could they prove you exist scientifically? They can't, because people in our reality designed their science and their reality. Programmers do not live under the laws of their own programs.
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman
"They can't, because people in our reality designed their science and their reality. Programmers do not live under the laws of their own programs."
- yes, the fact is that all we have to work with is evidence we gather in our world, if there is no evidence to support a god then there is no logical basis for us to beleive in one.
or in terms of your example:
- it's not logical to assume we are in a computer program by default
types10000 7 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman If it's impossible to distinguish if there is some "higher" being than you, then what point is there believing it does? Sure the truth on its own right is worth searching for but be honest, you religious people say you know for 100% that god exists. How is that so? If you can't detect it in anyway?
wHisperis001 6 months ago
@hanspeterpitsch So just because you can't see it, it could still exist. Sounds like a creationist argument.
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman The difference is that we can observe the atom and messure or test it's properties, god on the other hand, has nothing at all to back it up. It's just an idea, but never ever was there any shred of evidence found for it. That's why I don't believe in it, and that makes me an atheist.
If your logic would make sense, science would have discovered god and it wouldn't even be a question if he exists or not. Or it will in the future. But until then, there's no reason to believe.
hanspeterpitsch 7 months ago in playlist Faith, belief, religion
@shady9321 Atheists reference theories as facts daily on here. It's not a new phenomenon. Like when they tell me abiogenesis is a fact. Uhhh... No it's not. How do you test something to prove it, when it supposedly happened billions of years ago?
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman Read some science books, you might eventually understand how it works. Pluto is a good example. We know how long it takes to make a full turn, yet we don't know pluto long enough to have witnessed a full turn. Science has methods that enable us to find such things out. It's like the atom. Just because you can't see it with your bare eyes doesn't mean we can't know it exists and what it's properties. Same with abiogenesis and the big bang and such things. You know what I mean?
hanspeterpitsch 7 months ago
@Mikeybetts -we don't know how it works, so we make something up. Atheist logic
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman What exactly was made up here?
shady9321 7 months ago
"i dont know how it works so god did it"
christian logic
Mikeybetts 7 months ago
@iiwatcher -actually the Bible makes many claims that were outrageous at the time, and it predicts the future boldly and repeatedly. The Quran and Hindu Bible, i've read. They offer me no prophecy, salvation, or scientific facts. The Bible does, like when Elijah tells the sun worshipers that the sun isn't God, but just a star. Good guess for thousands of years ago.
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
@gillyssquashball -you're also welcome to make your case for where the Bible is wrong. It's should be easy. Type a chapter and verse, then show where it's wrong.
Bobweiserbudman 8 months ago
@gillyssquashball -it does say this though. "the Earth hangs upon nothing." all other ancient belief systems believed a physical object such as a man, turtle, etc, held the Earth up. ;-)
Bobweiserbudman 8 months ago
@gillyssquashball -you're welcome to quote chapter and verse. ;-)
Bobweiserbudman 8 months ago
90 year old guy got lost after the first 2 sentences. Or he fell asleep.
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
If Israel doesn't become a nation, the Bible is wrong. It happened 1948. If Jerusalem isn't divided, the Bible is wrong. It is. Muslim, Jewish, and Christian quarters. If a religion doesn't begin to take Christianity's place that preaches God, but that Jesus isn't Christ, then the Bible's wrong. It's called Islam. And more.... Not that hard is it? Seek and you shall find...
Bobweiserbudman 8 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman
Wow!!! I see ti now! All I had to do was cherry pick the bible and ignore all the bits where it was wrong. like the earth being a flat disc with a dome on top, and hey presto there is a god!
Fuck me...
gillyssquashball 8 months ago
@ciachowbella Nope. Nice try though. There have been many explorations by different groups with similar findings. Nice try though.
Mossinator5000Deluxe 8 months ago
Sounds like the caller is being held at gunpoint........
TheSpartan2910 8 months ago 21
@TheSpartan2910 i think hes just a really old guy
mattakudesu 8 months ago 24
@mattakudesu he definitely fell asleep during matts response
FatherofMan25 5 months ago
@mattakudesu i think its herbert from family guy
tsarenvy 5 months ago
@TheSpartan2910 looooool
lildonleeydaprodigy 8 months ago
@Ledwix God did not create good. He IS good. He cannot sin or lie. He is the same now as He has always been. How do we know that the soul is not matter? True, we cannot see or touch it. That does not make it not a real thing. Every scientist will admit that not all matter can be seen. Familiar with dark matter? God did not create man to be evil. Man chose to be that way. Every bad thing in this world is a result of man's choice to sin.
exportpro99 9 months ago
@exportpro99 if we are made in the image of god, and god IS good, and cannot lie or sin, then how is it that we can lie or sin? logically we shouldn't be able to do such things. if we aren't accurate images of god, then we are simply failed creations or experiment of god? then why do we praise him? how does religion justify the laws of chemistry and laws of thermodynamics which are provable? another thing is, if god is infinite, how does religion account for the infinity paradoxes?
harrygrapes 9 months ago
@harrygrapes We must have a differing views on the word image. I interpret image as something visual. Meaning God created us to look similar to what he looks like. A head, two arms, two legs and a torso. Things like dogs, cats, cows, fish... etc. were not created in his image. What laws of chemistry and thermodynamics does the bible need to justify? Not sure where you are going with that. You keep using the word religion. I do not. I have no use for religion. I'm all about the bible.
exportpro99 8 months ago
@exportpro99 matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. energy remains the same in a system. since nothing can create or destroy matter and energy, then logically god cannot, unless he is infinite. then god must be capable of doing anything, right? god must be able to create and destroy? can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? that's a paradox. how does the bible account for that? how do religions account for that?
harrygrapes 8 months ago
@linkz101 God's commandments were for us to follow. God can't sin because sins are only committed against God. God cannot sin against himself. Much like He says I am the Lord your God, you will have no other gods before me. This was not a commandment for God to follow. It was for man to follow. God can do with us as he wishes. He created every last one of us. We are His to take whenever He wants. He gave us life, and He can take it away.
exportpro99 9 months ago
@exportpro99 Sounds like he's a total dictator & you're his hapless slave. Why would such a thing appeal to you?
iiwatcher 9 months ago
@iiwatcher It may sound that way because you know nothing about Him. I am indeed His servant. And serving Him appeals to me because spending eternity in His presence sure beats the alternative.
exportpro99 9 months ago
@exportpro99 I know plenty about what your bible says and it's horrible. Your last sentence proves my point. What's the alternative? Eternal torment without end or any who do not believe. Think about that and what it means, & what it implies about god, if you have any rational thought left in your head. That's the god you serve. To actually desire to be a mindless slave to a horrible dictator is to be sick in the head.
iiwatcher 8 months ago
@iiwatcher Romans 1:19-22, Romans 8:6–7, Psalm 14:1. Look those up. Do they apply to you? Matthew 10:14. In case you dont understand this one. Do not confuse a lack of a response with not having one. It's because I will no longer waste my time. God does not want me to. Matthew 7:6
exportpro99 8 months ago
I know those verses. Sot? Spewing verses from a bronze age fairy tale book is not a valid counter. Simple thought experiment: a Muslim can do the same, does that make him right? How about any other religious book? See how using scripture is meaningless? Also, stop cherry picking verses & read them ALL. Your hit&run tactic only shows you're a coward, unwilling to engage in rational thought or debate. You're welcome to your delusions bc of your fear of death but don't impose them on others.
iiwatcher 8 months ago 3
@iiwatcher The sun is old, it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to our "sophisticated, modern day and age". Read the Bible, compare to other "scriptures", if you haven't, your arguments are not "valid counters" in my oppinion.
PirateXzibit 8 months ago
@PirateXzibit Ridiculous analogy. Your biased, uninformed opinion is irrelevant. What matters is what is true. That is, the bible is just another religious book written by people. Your "compare to other scriptures" challenge is laughable. You do realize that other holy books use the exact same claim? By your own methodology you would have to therefore accept ALL scriptures & gods as true. Basic logic that will no doubt elude you, or you will dodge it.
iiwatcher 7 months ago
@exportpro99 So, if I created my child, I can kill him or her all the same and I dictate his life?
PatrioticEagle50 9 months ago
@PatrioticEagle50 first of all, YOU cannot create life on your own. Only God can. You can father/mother a child but science tells us nobody can do that on their own. Look at it this way. As a father of three young boys (all of which were created by God), they have rules that they must obey. Because I know what is best for them (as God does for us). I do not owe them an explanation as to why they have rules. By your logic, the rules I set for them I should follow as well? I think not.
exportpro99 9 months ago
@exportpro99 Humans don't get credit for creating a baby? That means God gets credit for creating it? By that standpoint, anything humans do...well, God gets credit for creating it. Then God should get credit for all the evils man has committed, too, yes? So God created evil. Okay, by your logic, he's not worth worshiping. I'd like to see you get out of that one. "But he's perfectly holy." Yes according to your theology, but there is a contradiction here if you say he created EVERYTHING.
Ledwix 9 months ago
@Ledwix God did not create evil or sin. Evil or sin is not a creation. It is not something you can touch. It does not take up space and it is not matter. Every "Thing" was created by Him. Sin and evil are results of our actions. Since the beginning, God has always given us the choice to follow Him or to not follow Him. As far as children. Yes, two people can produce a child. But only God can create life from nothing.
exportpro99 9 months ago
@exportpro99 Okay, "souls" are not matter either. Did God not create souls? Did God not create good?
Any time you say God created everything, you're saying he designed the whole timeline of spacetime with the relevant parameters for us to make decisions, including creating the inevitable ability to do evil....so if he was all-knowing, he did create evil.
Ledwix 9 months ago
@Ledwix Well, no one is denying THAT
mimejunyer 9 months ago
@Ledwix LOL ZERO counter from the bible thumper. When they can't escape reason, they run. Good stuff Ledwix.
iiwatcher 8 months ago
@exportpro99 You don't know much about your own religion do you? God created EVERYTHING. Before god there was nothing but god. That's a basic premise of your holy book. he also created Satan who was an angel in heaven. HEAVEN. That means sin ORIGINATED IN HEAVEN in a creature that was supposed to be perfect, which means god created sin. At the very least, sin got into heaven right under god's nose. God sure screwed up on that one! Yet god is not responsible for sin in the 1st place? FAIL.
iiwatcher 8 months ago 2
I think they put ol' Bill to sleep with that one & they woke him up at the end
Must be a lot to take in for someone like that
Tarynus 9 months ago
Or the youtbue videos -Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision- or how about -making sense of sensory information-
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman -lol , or how about the video -There is no spoon-
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
If Atheist really want to know why Theists are able to refute them, you would need to watch videos such as "Are we just simulations", or "What is real", but Atheists don't like ideas like that because those ideas make Science more than a programmed set of rules that do what they are designed to do and those laws suddenly can be altered.
Bobweiserbudman 9 months ago
@chiachowbella -saying you have no physical evidence of God is like the Sima saying they have no physical evidence of you. Do YOU exist?
Bobweiserbudman 9 months ago
@ciachowbella -the entire Earth used to be frozen, right? A global flood impossible? Think about it.
Bobweiserbudman 9 months ago
@Bobweiserbudman No, the ice ages were periods where glaciers covered a much larger area of the Earth than they do today, but there have never been glaciers at the equator. More importantly, a thin layer of ice covering the entire Earth would entail vastly less water than a global flood to a depth of several thousand feet. Think of it this way: How much paint would you need to paint a chair? How much paint would you need to completely fill a tub big enough to completely submerge the chair in it?
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor Never been glaciers at the equator? Are you sure? What about the tillites found at equatorial paleolatitudes? Snowball Earth is still a matter of speculation, but I don't think we can rule it out.
NevilleRhysBarnes 9 months ago
@NevilleRhysBarnes It's probable that such a state existed in the pre-Cambrian, but I assumed you were talking about the Cenozoic ice ages since these would be more applicable to an apology for the Deluge myths. Even if such a state had existed, I think the profusion of flora and fauna since that time would render it highly unlikely to recur from the Mesozoic on. Not to mention, as I said, a flood would require much more water than a snowball - too much water to have ever been feasible.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor Fair enough. (Yes, I was thinking of the two possible snowball earth scenarios from before the Cambrian.)
I don't see how anyone can tie the last glacial (which ended circa 11,000 years ago) to Noah's flood, supposedly about 5-6000 years ago. But that's Biblical literalists for you.
NevilleRhysBarnes 9 months ago
@ciachowbella -if God doesn't exist, why does He keep answering my prayers?
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
@ciaochowbella -so what? That's like the Sims saying they've seen no physical evidence of you. Do you exist?
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
Ancient wheels matching ancient Egyptian wheels covered with choral? Telling children the tooth fairy left the quarter might be a simple answer, but it wouldn't be true
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
The world was never covered with water? Then scientists are wrong.
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
@Mossinator5000Deluxe Not only has the entire planet NOT been covered with water all at once, it's impossible. There simply isn't enough water on the planet to accomplish this feat. Water is a finite resource and even if ice caps melted, it still wouldn't be enough water to submerge all the land.
If you do believe in the flood, you not only have to account for where the extra water came from, you have to account for where that extra water went.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
@HonestMan 395. You're welcome to give your sources. I've actually seen things that would prove otherwise, such as Egyptian chariots found at the bottom of the Red Sea, the early churches of Egypt, and the flood has been disproven? Even Atheist scientist say this world was once covered with water. Fish fossils at top of mountains, right?
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
@Mossinator5000Deluxe The world was never covered by water. Different parts have been covered at different times and areas that were once underwater have risen due to forces in the earth's crust.
There are many ways to get a chariot into the sea apart from driving it into a huge rift in the ocean. You can take chariots on boats which can sink for example. Or you could be transporting chariot wheels. There are more simple explanations than those in the Bible.
PartiallyRibena 9 months ago
@Mossinator5000Deluxe You have NOT seen things that would prove otherwise. The "archaeologist" who supposedly discovered those chariots and a whole mess of other Biblical "artifacts" has been fully discredited and proved to be a liar and charlatan. His name was Ron Wyatt and he was a nurse. His findings have been fully and completely debunked but apologist sites STILL tout his findings as proof of Biblical authenticity.
Before you start citing supposed scientists, research your source.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
The eye
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
The eye no more evolves because the eye is not the creator of DNA. DNA is what forms the eye in all it's light processing totality. There is no guessing work evolution going on. It's creation by fiat. Knowledge to create life existed in the beginning, "Let there be light"! The "chance god" and "random god" is a fantasy by atheist to express there depravity.
zzap999 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiscoRByrno Jesus said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Can you not understand that simple passage? Throw a stone if you have commited NO SIN in your life. It's very simple to understand.
"You don't get to interpret who the law can be applied to"
I never said that. I said who the law is applided BY. Not TO. Now I think you're probably a spam, not a real person.... hehe
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "You reject the scientific method and rely on the bible." - I don't know where you get that from. I believe in a decent scientific method, which is not yours, nether the New Atheists'. You have no knowledge of the scientific method at all and are a moron. You can't have been a Christian. You may have CALLED yourself a Christian once, but I doubt you were.
Well, I've taken the Bible literally, why do you say it's my own interpretation?
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@cashernandes1 Quote: "Well, I've taken the Bible literally, why do you say it's my own interpretation?"
Because the whole of the bible is interpretation.
Fantastical and imaginative interpretation and manipulation of the myths and legends contained in the bible, is the only way that any form of even pseudo-sense can be made of it's accuracy, after a proper examination of the totally unsupported and unsupportable text.
HonestMan395 10 months ago
@HonestMan395 how are you so sure the bible is fantastical and imaginative interpretation and manipulation of the myths and legends?
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@boriwepaa. Nearly all of the cornerstone events of the bible (the Exodus, The flood, The nativity Etc.) have been disproven, by independent verifiable historical and archaelogical investigation.
Not only that, but the church itself has accepted the stories purely as allegorical moral guidance legends for hundreds of years.
quote: "It has served us well, this Myth of Christ." Pope Leo X
My Brother-in-law first told me about it and I've investigated it since. He was a C of E Vicar.
HonestMan395 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno About the subject of stoning people to death, read John 8:1-11 to know Jesus' stand on this.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." - John 8:7
The law can only be applied by someone who hasn't sinned AT ALL: in other words NO-ONE, except God himself.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@cashernandes1 one of the commandments is not to kill...god has killed many...hence god has sinned
linkz101 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "God is not Jesus, so either it's God's word or it's Jesus' word."
Have you actually READ anything of the Gospels? Or just those verses about murdering/stoning people to death and stuff? Do you know ANYTHING about Christianity at all? What a retard you are...
Jesus IS God's WORD incarnated. Read John chapter 1 verse 1 (which shows you haven't even begun reading one of the canonical Gospels). Did you know that God's three persons, darling? Whatever Jesus says is what God says.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Wow, what a dummie. Your knowledge of what the scientific method is about is really pitiful. Science relies upon certain propositions, which rely upon other propositions, and so forth, down to the point where the first proposition was self-evident. I think you're homo sapiens because I know I AM. That knowledge doesn't come from science, it's self-evident, it comes from within yourself.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno However, I believe you're probably a real person because I know I AM a real person. If I am a real person, then I know it highly unlikely that you aren't. That's a SELF-evident truth, silly. A self-evident truth cannot be proven by science, but rather science RELIES upon self-evident truths in order to make sense. Science is not omnipotent, as Mr. Peter Atkins claims it is.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@cashernandes1
You can't make generalizations like that. Science does NOT rely upon self-evident truths in order to make sense. It relies on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is the system we humans use in everyday life. The scientific method is the system of making observations and conducting experiments to reach scientific conclusions, a similar concept to the steps of a lab experiment:
1. Hypothesis
2. Make Experiment
3. Perform Experiment
4. Gather Data
5. Conclusion
DiscoRByrno 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "Wow, you really sound uneducated."
If "being able to type" is the definite prove that you can give that you have a brain and a consciousness, then I can only assume that by "uneducated" you're talking about yourself. ;)
You may be a computer, or a computer program, designed to give stupid answers (by best guess so far). Even if I saw you in person that wouldn't be a proof you possess a real brain, let alone consciousness. Some things cannot be proven my the scientific method...
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno If Cristianity is true, then those teachings wouldn't be biased at all. At the end of the day it is about believing or not. I believe it because historical facts back up the Gospel.
If someone kills in the name of God they can't be Christians because true Christians follow the Word of God, which is Jesus Christ. He never said murdering was cool. ;)
Being able to type is no proof that you have a brain at all, you might be a robot and not know it. How can you prove it? ;)
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno If you really believe that the State is good and for the best of everyone, I can do nothing but wish you good luck in the coming years... If someone kills in the name of God, they're obviously not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, which in turn makes them NOT Christians. And if it the reality of Jesus is true and a fact, why would it be a mere opinion? And you haven't addressed this: why should I believe you have a brain if I've never seen it? How convenient...
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "Christians is that they don't even know how exactly their beliefs hurt the human species as a whole..."
It's not the belief that hurts the human species, it's HUMANS themselves who do that. One may call himself a Christian (as Hitler did) and not be one at all. Indeed there are very very few true Christians out there. Religions may well bring trouble upon the world, but the teachings of Jesus, when followed strictly, can never do that.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "then your parents put a biased twist on it"... It's better than having the State control mass populations, as they're successfully doing you. We were meant to be taught by our parents, not the State, trust me.
Anyway. God is a self-evident truth, who ever opposes that has the burden of proof. Let me give you an example: following your reasoning, I should not believe you have a brain. I've never seen it or touched it, therefore you must not have one. That's plain ridiculous.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno You're making a claim: that God DOESN'T exist. You need to proove that. The saddest thing about atheists is that they don't even know what exactly their worldview entails...
If you get your knowledge from school, then you're CONTROLLED by the State, silly. That's why people who are home-schooled are generally superior than other human beings... as far as knowledge is concerned. :P
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Your knowledge comes from SCHOOL, really? Wow, I pity you now. What has he refuted? You can't refute reality in much the same way you can't God.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno It's you who should come up with proof, otherwise you're a mere agnostic, and a very bad one indeed... Be honest to yourself, you won't be able to maintain your "atheist" worldview for very long.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno What an iditot. Logic and reason only point to God, not the other way around. Science can only account for very little in terms of providing evidence for what is real or not. Your materialistic views of the world are downright puerile, Atheism = a teenage fit. Grow up already...
cashernandes1 10 months ago
People seem to have this odd idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, but in reality this doesn't pan out. Backs that have issues in a few decades, knees with multiple issues and easy to damage, hearing and vision loss, and so on... There's no miraculous design, just organisms doing what they can with what they have.
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime Computer processors, neural networks, robotics, nanotechnology, dominate the modern world. Yet no one disputes those are designed. Yet biological life which uses those same technologies analogously with a billion times more complexity wasn't designed? "The fool in his heart says there is no God".
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 Well, your bible verse really is irrelevant, and you're just saying that something is so complex a deity had to do it... that's not an answer. What predictive power does your hypothesis have? How could it be falsified? It's an empty answer and has no business in the scientific community. Human beings are nowhere near perfectly designed and all the evidence suggests that we had earlier ancestors in common with other primates. Sure, you could sneak a god in your explanation, but why?
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime "Like begets like and kind begets kind". Uh, predictive power? Hypothesis? Sorry, but it's really happening. Open your eyes and stop watching re-runs of Avatar.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999
Care to define what you mean with 'kind'?
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime Ok, let me go to the dictionary for you.
–noun
1.
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2.
nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
3.
a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999
So, the same species with different characteristics classifies as being different 'kinds'? Would that be accurate under the first definition?
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime "different characteristics" is not in the first definition. The first definition says "traits in common".
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999
So yes? I really need an answer on that.
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@zzap999
How about human cancer cells becoming a distinct species? I'm pretty sure that gets rid of your 'kinds' hypothesis. Helacyton gartleri is the species that was the offshoot from cervical cancer cells over the course of forty years. It now has a different number of chromosomes than humans and can live outside a human body. I recommend looking at the evidence for evolution at talkorigins.
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime Here is a comment(Best Answer) from "gribblin" who claims he actually cultures them in a lab
answers dot yahoo dot com/question/index?qid=20090924023151AALzheJ
"HeLa cells are a cancerous cell line (specifically isolated from a cervical cancer).
They are not an independent organism, and are therefore not a new life form."
"They cannot find food for themselves, they cannot survive outside carefully-regulated conditions of temperature, pH, osmolarity, etc."
Read on...
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 > "uh yeah they are independent."
No they are not. I grow them in the lab, and I can tell you that if I didn't constantly feed the, change their media, etc. they'd rapidly die.
They cannot find food for themselves, they cannot survive outside carefully-regulated conditions of temperature, pH, osmolarity, etc.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 [2] the reason they cannot interbreed with the species they were derived from is because they are single cells, and therefore cannot produce either sperm or eggs (and certainly cannot gestate a growing foetus inside them). This has nothing to do with any mutations they have experienced.
zzap999 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zzap999 > "uh yeah they are independent."
No they are not. I grow them in the lab, and I can tell you that if I didn't constantly feed the, change their media, etc. they'd rapidly die.
They cannot find food for themselves, they cannot survive outside carefully-regulated conditions of temperature, pH, osmolarity, etc.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 Edit II:
> "-so you (or any plated culture) arent independant either, becuase if i didnt feed you, you would die?"
No - but I can feed myself.
And a bacterial culture can survive without human intervention.
That is what "independent" means.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999
Would you say that it's the same 'kind'? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
CrazyBluePrime 10 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime They are cancer cells. What else would they be?
zzap999 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Well, why not? You make up stuff and want to be treated nicely? :P
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "It would be false to call God eternal". Where the fuck did you get that from?
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@boriwepaa Exactly. Don't waste your time debating an atheist, they're really silly...
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@cashernandes1 yeah they have no ground to stand on. how do they know they are speaking the true if everything the believe come from material from space. I say this to them if there is no God we all lose, we die and that is it for us, but if the bible is true and there is a God that loves us we who believe will be save and does who does not wanna believe you know what will happen.. God does not want us to go to hell it is a chose they make. God bless you :)
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@boriwepaa Yes! They want "scientific evidence for God". There's no such thing, and there can't be. A particular science is supposed to provide evidence for a very TINY frame of reality, whereas God encompasses ALL reality. The existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, timeless, omnipresent God is proven by that very definition. Reality itself is the ultimate proof of God's existence. God bless you! =)
cashernandes1 10 months ago
Comment removed
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Why my friend? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno now If the you states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno If you states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds, since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno now you say my logic is wrong let see examples of the laws of logic? Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.. now u atheist account for the laws of logic
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno "Who created God?" Again, the 1st law confirms energy
is eternal. Before the universe began, there must have existed an ORIGINAL, initial, energy source which has ALWAYS existed. This initial, original, energy source IS God.
( GOD IS THE CREATOR WHO IS UNCREATED)
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno God is composed of energy but not entirely energy. The God I serve is composed of
INFINITE INTELLIGENCE as well.
He can certainly be intelligent enough to break the boundaries of the 2nd law and find a way to harness his energy infinitely and NEVER result in
disorder. If you can't agree with this explanation, you're putting limits on God
which is simply IDIOTIC.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Atheists may say " Well, all of the energy in the universe could have derived itself from multiple energy sources, not just a single one".That maybe true, but it still poses a serious problem. Multiple or single unintelligent energy source(s) would most likely result in chaos and disorder. Atheists may also say " Well, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics God may eventually disorganize and
deteriorate overtime if he is composed of energy".
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno If you can’t agree with this logic than you’re
stubborn unreasonable, and don’t want to believe in the possible
existence in a God. Every example of DUMB energy source(s) that we can observe are volatile and destructive by nature and will
NEVER create organization . Examples : the sun, tornadoes,
hurricanes, earthquakes. Sure tornadoes or hurricanes may APPEAR organized but, they will never CREATE organization.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Its not UNRESONABLE to assume this ENORMUS
energy was the creator GOD. Listen, we reasonably have 2 options to determine what WAS this powerful always existing energy. It COULD be dumb unconscious, and vague energy source. However this seems extremely illogical considering we can observe complexity
, order, and design throughout the universe. The most logical answer
would be that and intelligent mind constructed the universe, or a God its as simple as that.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno This energy source that was present BEFORE the Universe had to have power beyond anything we could ever imagine. Considering it had it had to transfer its energy unto the TRILLIONS of Stars and
Billions of galaxies. A separate ETERNAL energy source that exists OUTSIDE of the universe had to have supplied or transferred its
energy onto the universe (because we know the universe didn’t
always exist. )
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Nothing can only create nothing before the Universe began something must have always existed. ITS ENERGY. Energy is ETERNAL. The 1st law of thermodynamics confirms that. The Law states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed” No beginning or uncreated and no end.
That’s the definition of eternal. You also can’t claim that this energy always existed IN the known universe because Science has proven the Universe didn’t always exist.
boriwepaa 10 months ago
@DiscoRByrno to be fair.. god might exist, in the grand scheme of things we really have no clue wtf is going on. but there is no justifiable reason to accept that the bible is anything other than a steaming pile of shite, lol.
ScotchMonkey08 11 months ago
@DiscoRByrno As much as i love this show they dont prove anything... And i dont care what you believe in. The only reason i commented you in the first place was because i was trying to help you out in your argument before. But then you got all defensive. Really no offense, but i dont think you even know what your talking about. As a great person once said.... Cut the crud. ya dig© †
Melexonitrate 11 months ago
@DiscoRByrno First of all matter does just randomly appear. Virtual particles that then annihilate each other unless one part gets sucked into a black hole, then the other one remains. I believe in God but yet i know far more in the scientific community than you do. You make no sense when you brought up geometry. There's more theory's than the big bang. If you wana find out if im right or not pray to God to give you the answers. Study the bible, and look to science for help too.
Melexonitrate 11 months ago
Fuck yeah tears for fears!
protorobsmos 11 months ago
@DiscoRByrno If you refute my idea... Absolutely i can refute yours. How in the world do you know whats true or not. Your right we both cant be wrong. It's either some one created the universe or some one didnt. 10th grade geometry?? "Since you (Cant) be right, then that means I am right" What???? What does finding the area of shapes have to do with anything. If you dont know if your right than how can any one be wrong? I was just trying to help you in your argument. It's not valid
Melexonitrate 11 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Sorry for responding to a 3 month old comment. Dont ever use this argument again tho... Because the universe was technically created from nothing if you wana say. Where did all the rocks and gasses come from that created life as we know it now. It goes the same both ways. Either God always existed or rocks and gases that always existed, that are non living created us.
Melexonitrate 11 months ago
@DiscoRByrno Actually God is infinite and thus is eternal. God has ALWAYS existed and ALWAYS will exist.
LumieX 11 months ago