Happy New Year 2012. Too bad for atheist, it is probably an insignificant event of Gregorian calendar (a christian contribution to science, mind you). Surely there is nothing to wish and hope for because that will be illogical. Must be a sad thing to be atheist.
@lazerbeam134 I was talking about creation but you mentioned about sustaining. Let's entertain that too. Sustaining complexity goes with the given law of the universe. How could such law exist to enable the universe to sustain itself? can we as intelligent beings just exist not because of intelligent laws of the universe? How could such intelligent exist?
@cycletrade Because intelligence as we understand has arisen out of natural processes. The only gauge of intelligence we have is ourselves. It would seem natural to think that there must be some greater intelligence, if you are unwilling to recognize that intelligence is just a way to deal with the world. The problem here is that you assign magical properties to intelligence. Intelligence is simply a response to stimuli.
@lazerbeam134 It's a larger picture of intelligence. The matter in cosmos like we find in periodic table of elements have definite number and unique properties. The way they react along with gravity and energy are predefined. Science can observe then make assumptions because those things are not random but very orderly. That's pretty much what science can do so far. Personally, I believe there is a maker, a designer that place all the fundamentals needed in this universe.
@cycletrade You believe. But do you know? Can you know? And observation doesn't lead to assumptions, it leads to conclusions. It's going from A to Z. Not from A to 7. This is a logical sequence. And actually, randomness is entirely in line with the idea of natural law. If you roll dice, the result is random, correct? You have 6 possible outcomes per die, and the permutations possible are determined by the number of die you roll. But you cannot say the outcome is predetermined.
@lazerbeam134 dice*; The outcome is random; but the process that generates the outcome follows physics.I couldn't break it down step by step, because of how small it is and how fast it happens. The "predefined" aspects of nature are not predefined. God didn't write out the Periodic Table; we did. We ascribed the notion of "properties" as a mean to describe nature. And gravity is one of four fundamental forces, that we are only beginning to understand. IE, the Higgs Boson ref.
@lazerbeam134 Your dice example is irrelevant, we know for a fact the speed of light, the chemical properties of hydrogen, and the fact the 2H+O makes water the basic necessity for life to exist & evolve. Either you are trolling, or too uninformed like Bill O'Reilly. That's the kind of the orderly intelligent, non-random fact which exist in our cosmos. The intelligent are about why those matters exist and the law of physics attributed to them.
@cycletrade And we know for a fact that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Obviously you are set to prove my point. The dice example is perfectly relevant, you simply fail to see it. Do the laws of physics apply to rolling dice? Do they or do they not? Similarly, the laws of chemistry would apply to the formation of molecular compounds. Such as DNA, which has random variations. This is a fact we know. "Order" isn't proof of intelligence. The die roll is random, but has rules.
@lazerbeam134 I take it you are being uninformed. The dice spewed a number depended on what material it was made, the weight & smoothness of geometry, the gravitational force of the geographical location, the force it was thrown, the density and type of matter it hit upon and the angle it was hit. ALL these say there is a law of physics at work. The question is WHY there is a law of physics and WHY it has very specific character/attributes to it. Why not any other attributes. Get it?
@cycletrade I am not uninformed. The outcome is still random. The laws of physics apply, but there is a 1 in 6 chance that any given number will turn up on any given roll of a die. Again, we can talk about why the rules are the way they are all day, and neither of us would be right. You would say God made them that way. Why does God exist, if why is so important? What God exists? Why should your God be the true God? I have faced this all before, kid.
@lazerbeam134 Science never get to describing the how it exist much less the WHY it exist. Science is unable to provide alternative answer to WHY is there existence as we know it. Therefore it is irrational for its lack of merit to be use by atheist to deem faith in believing God as irrational.
Faith in God is not a blind believe. It come from scientific observations too, from factual historical references, from philosophical views and from personal experiences.
@cycletrade Faith in God can't be anymore than blind. You prove it every time you write a response. You haven't even really considered anything I have said, because it challenges your faith. Science lacks merit? You just said that we know scientific theories to be factual. Science is endlessly explaining how nature works. You have listed examples yourself. You are distorting what you hear to justify your faith.
@cycletrade And I will also point out, you seem to want to ignore many points. Possibly because it scares you to see a question you can't answer, or to face a truth that might lead you to question your programming. Because religion is programming. It is social, psychological, and emotional programming. You have been deceived.
@lazerbeam134 Then there is life, a force we can observe to exists because it is with us, yet science has never able to explain much less create one. No one yet able to mix cosmos ingredients into something alive. It takes something alive to make another living being.
We are good in science to explain certain HOW, not all, but really sucks in explaining WHY.
HOW without WHY can never get to a complete TRUTH.
@cycletrade Scientific endeavors are growing closer to that eventuality too. We have created the various building blocks of life, and with more research, an artificial life form might be a reality. The proposition you present is that gaps in knowledge should be filled with god. The problem with the God of the gaps is that it doesn't actually answer the question, it creates more. What God is it? How did it come to be itself? Then you see gaps in God. You are moving further from truth
@lazerbeam134 Again, I would like to point out that "why" is irrelevant. This is a problem that people like Bill O'Reilly have. He asked once "Why does the sun come up, and go down? Why do the tides come in, and go out?" He claimed there was no explanation. Because he asked a stupid question. Why is irrelevant, because there are an infinity of possible "whys' to contend with. There is only one how, and that is based on observation and the scientific method. I have a question for you.
@lazerbeam134 cont... My question is, if God is the creator of all things, and he has given us a holy text. The Bible for example, then why would the information in the Bible not be able to withstand the scrutiny of scientific method? Why would the Bible be wrong about cosmology? (Geocentric model) Why would it each that the many forms of life were "poof'd" into being by God, when the real evidence shows that evolution explains speciation? Why would it not reveal that the Sun is a star?
Could it be that the concept of God is an invented one? That it is a product of human intelligence. You argue that human intelligence was crafted by God. I would suggest that it was the other way around. Are you aware of how many gods mankind has dreamed up? Why don't you believe in them?
@lazerbeam134 Did you even read the Bible? where in the bible that makes you think it was wrong about cosmology? Do you even think about the time reference when Bible was written and how it was related to the minimal scientific understanding of the people at that time?
@cycletrade Yes. And you have argued against yourself. If the time reference matters, than it wasn't influenced by God. In the Bible it is stated that the Sun travels around the Earth. "when Bible was written and how it was related to the minimal scientific understanding of the people at that time?" So you admit that Man invented God. Congrats.
@lazerbeam134 Things written in the Bible stands the truth eternally. You can't expect it have to contain explanation about quantum physics in it. The understanding that the Sun is a star come much later when human has better understanding in science about the stars.
@cycletrade You did it again. The Bible is the eternal word of God, you say on one hand/ On the other you say, "but people didn't know so you can't expect it to be in there." God would know, so he would tell humans. I am referring to the story of Jericho, when God stopped the Sun in the sky. Now, the Earth either stopped spinning, which would kill everyone. Or the cosmos was geocentric. Which we found is not the case.
@lazerbeam134 And in Genesis, God created the Sun and Stars separately. The Sun is a star, so why would he create them separately? And you can't say that the Sun is the youngest or oldest star, because that is unlikely to be the case. It is in a very young stage atm. We see older stars from Earth with a telescope. So, what you conclude is that Man invented the Bible, and that means also maybe Man invented God.
@lazerbeam134 Sun is the name we call the star where earth revolve. It was referenced distinctly and named because it relates in many ways to our lives directly instead of those other stars. What importance is that anyway to your statement?
@cycletrade Because the Bible is talking about the nature of the Universe, and is inaccurate. The Bible doesn't specify that it is distinct because of its relationship to Earth; it was literally believed to be something different from the stars.
@lazerbeam134 Stop mumbling senseless words and taking things out of context. Do we need to replace the words SUNRISE and SUNSET with something else more representative to our current knowledge about cosmos? It's a matter of descriptions, and yes some people had misinterpreted it. So what? it's only human to err. The real essence about the truth, the love of God which resulted in the creation is still there.
@cycletrade Love of God? Really? What about all the genocide, murder, rape, and general suffering God inflicted on his children? What about the punishment of eternal suffering in Hell? Is that love? Would you punish your child forever with immense and unimaginable pain for disobeying your wishes? Is that love?
@lazerbeam134 Unless you believe that God is the Creator you never grasp the how story in Jericho can happen. You only able to equate God to human abilities therefore fail to recognize power of the Creator of cosmos. The believer call it miracle.
Miracle still happens today, many have experience it where things happened seems to defy logic/science/possibilities. Yet it happened and observed.
@cycletrade Name one. Name one miracle in the modern age. Name one example of natural law defied by the hand of God. if you could we would not be having this conversation. You are copping out of the internal logic necessary for a belief to be vindicated objectively. I suggest you look at a video by TheraminTrees called Atheism as Congruence/Transition to Atheism. You will see that you are simply warping reality to defend your faith.
@lazerbeam134 Name one modern age miracle? The 20th century Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal, where 3 little shepherds saw the apparition of Blessed Virgin Mary, then a miraculous event of the Sun that appeared "dancing" and all sort that a normal Sun wouldn't do. The event witnessed by 100.000 people and recorded by the local papers. That was one big miracle event. Other more personal, like miracle of healing, miracle of protection from harm, have been experienced by believers worldwide.
@cycletrade That was a hoax, according to all people, CHRISTIANS. Now I am sure of your particular brand of Christianity...you sir are a Catholic. But also debunked by more scientifically minded people,,, skeptoid-com--episodes4110 (add in dots in slashes where I put the -'s,
@cycletrade "Faith healing" can be explained by psychology; mind over matter. When one has a positive attitude about a disease or injury, they tend to have more confidence that their medications and therapies will work. Protection miracles sound like a bunch of bullshit just by default. And in general, it would be a good idea for you to look into the phenomenon of perceiving order in chaos. See also pareidolia.
@cycletrade I have read the Bible. I wouldn't reference it if I hadn't read it. The Quran also supports the geocentric model. Did you honestly think I would have decided to be an atheist without first examining other options? That there never was a time in my life that I wanted there to be something special about me and the world I live in? It was education about world religions that shaped who I am. There ave been many Gods. You believe in only one more than I do.
@lazerbeam134 You know you are created with freewill. That means they will be those like atheist that choose not to believe in God and loss the awareness of God, deceived by their own arrogance, hide behind accomplishment of science which has not & will not disprove God, blinded to see God presence in every creation and existence.
I have say enough in this thread and will not continue. May God saves your souls.
@lazerbeam134 Omitting importance of "why" looks just a convenience to you isn't it? Because you have no base in scientific answer to that. In any event, there is a WHY that makes that thing happened. Thinking things just happened is illogical.
@cycletrade You apparently need to have things spelled out for you. WHY is a question of meaning, implicit that there was a reason behind it. You can come up with any answer to that question, and it is ARBITRARY. So, this isn't saying that things just happened necessarily, but if it were...then it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Because the way it all works would be the same. The difference? Your meaning is lost.
@lazerbeam134 If you have been starved for 10 days, and you finally found food to eat, is there any other reason that you ate it other than because your body needs it badly, or you would delude yourself thinking it is just for the fun and taste of it?
Saying anything can be any reason and arbitrary is fooling yourself. There is a true reason, one that is most likely among possible answers to WHYs.
@cycletrade My body needs food, because of HOW my body works. You are failing again to see the point. What is arbitrary are the answers to questions like "Why does the Universe exist?" "Why do I need to eat food?" Is not the same, because it can be explained by looking at How your body works. Something tangible. I am talking about the notion that there is a grand scheme or deeper meaning to explain existence. You have no way to justify that.
I'm a Christian, and even I can say this question sucks! Atheists don't use religion to form a lack of belief, that's like saying that if there were no religions, then they'd be no atheists because there's no religion to base there lack of faith on. They base lack of faith on science, which would exist regardless of the existance of any religious text. And we're not born atheist, since atheism in a choice to not believe, and we're not born understanding the concept of God, so can't make a choice
@KurtCobain198666 it sucks if you don't truly believe or have faith. They cant answer it, that's the beauty of it lol, puts em in a paradox of answers, none which truly answer it that isn't some sort of sarcasm aswell.. pisses em right off, just look at the replies so far :)
@rorstar83 The question is convoluted beyond comprehension.
1-Religion isn't always the bible. There are many other religions.
2-You don't lack belief because of proof, you lack belief because of a lack of proof on the side of the accuser. If I say that there's pixies in my closet, naturally, you wouldn't believe me. This isn't because of the "proof of lack of belief", but instead the lack of proof of my proposal that there's fairies in my closet. It's a basic shift of the burden of proof.
@bryanhaw1 Once again you fail to be open minded of non-science possibility. You said you lack belief because of a lack of proof. I've showed you that science has not offer proof that God does not exist nor have proven answers to questions about universe and creations. Let me ask you, do you believe what science theorizes? By your own definition, you cannot believe that those science theories to be the truth.
@cycletrade You pretending that souls and God axiomatically exist. You must prove these things.
Yes, I lack belief because theists lack proof. Offer me proof that there are not invisible pixies in my closet. You can't. Look up burden of proof. It's on the theists, not atheists.
In order for something to become a scientific theory, it must stand through rigorous peer review and scrutiny. Theories come about because of material evidence.
@bryanhaw1 You haven't give me your answer. You said that "2-You don't lack belief because of proof, you lack belief because of a lack of proof on the side of the accuser."
You agree that science has not come with proven facts about the how universe came to be and how there are things that exists in the universe.
So, if you need scientific proof to believe in something, wouldn't that mean you cannot yet believe whatever hypothesis science says about this matter until such proof can be presented?
@cycletrade There is no scientific hypothesis that explains how anything/everything exists. I admit my ignorance on the question, as will most people. Once again, this doesn't mean anything, as I have shown how arguments from ignorance are invalid.
@cycletrade You also seem to misunderstand atheism. I'm not saying God is impossible and absolutely does not exist, I am rejecting all claims that there is a God because there has been no proof. I don't need proof for my disbelief because I'm not making a proposal, I'm denying one that lacks proof.
Once again, you cannot disprove pixies, but (I hope) you don't believe they exist because there's no proof of them. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
@bryanhaw1 You keep asking proof of God through scientific means, which hasn't happen, and may not ever happen, because we humans might not have enough IQ through science to prove/disprove that there is God.
By all means you are entitled not to believe in God, but to say theist believe in God is irrational and illogical are also wrong, because then you are becoming the accuser thus need to proof that claim.
@cycletrade It's not because we're not smart enough, it's because the evidence isn't there. IQ shows one's potential for comprehension. However, the idea of a God is not a complex one at all, and most people can grasp what is required to prove such an idea.
You have openly admitted that your belief in a God is irrational and illogical, and claimed that you have to "feel" God (which is utterly ludicrous). Saying this in no way shifts the burden of proof to me.
@cycletrade Lets imagine that a guy named Johnny claims that there are invisible fairies in his closet, and if one lets one's heart think, one can "feel" them. Obviously, I can say that Johnny's claim is completely absurd, irrational, and illogical, yet I still don't have to prove they don't exist. He has to prove that they do exist for the claim to be rational.
It would be impossible to give proof that there aren't fairies in his closet, but no one in their right mind would believe him.
@cycletrade To quote Carl Sagan, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."
@cycletrade God is something of which you are taught. Those who claim otherwise are misguided.
I was born into a family where both of my parents were raised Christian, but are now agnostic. Never once did they mention God or religion to me, and I was never brought to church. God, in my mind, equated to things such as the Loch Ness monster and Big Foot. It wasn't until the age of 13 or so that I realized some people genuinely believed in God. You are not born believing in God.
@bryanhaw1 I agree. Almost everything we know are passed down to us or taught by others such as other human, other living beings, in physical or non-physical dimensions. There are things we personally experience and can add/subtract/change such knowledge.
Above all everything is perceived usually by our interpretation limited to individual capacities. Hence the multitudes of religions to comprehend God, or the differing opinions of scientific theories.
@cycletrade I don't think everything is limited by our IQ. There are some things, such as quantum mechanics and thermodynamics which requires a high IQ to fully understand, but this is not the case with most things.
The fact that there are so many different religions shows how they are made by humans and different ones arise in different areas, based on what the people in that region happen to make up.
There are only contradicting scientific theories in highly theoretical areas of science.
@bryanhaw1 The face of religions are interpretation of human thoughts throughout history. Some become extremist in the name of God. That is just typical human. We just have to sieve the essence & the real values in it. If I don't stand by the sidewalks and preach the end is near, am I less Christian? I really don't care with labeling anyway.
Holybooks never came down on man overnight, nor God ever declare any religion. He works with individuals whom passed the message down the generations.
@cycletrade If these are just different interpretations of the same story, why have people been killing each other over them for thousands of years? Clearly, they're more than just different versions of the same story. Judaism says there isn't a hell, Christianity says there is. That fact makes the two religions extremely different, and no misinterpretation could bring about such a huge difference.
What do you make of polytheism? It's still around today.
@bryanhaw1 Lord Kelvin once said there will be no more fundamental discoveries in physic to be made. So, you see even when a genius could make such mistakes, many other things and concepts may be perceived differently by individuals.
@cycletrade Those things are absolutely, fundamentally different. Science is based on things we can observe. As we develop more technology, there is more we can observe. Have you ever considered that Jesus was lying or was a schizophrenic? I believe Jesus believed he was the son of God. However all the story's of eyewitness accounts were written no less that 100 years after his death. Nobody who actually saw him alive wrote any part of the bible.
@bryanhaw1 You better think further of the word observation. Whatever you perceive through whatever you observe really depends of the senses we have, how fine tuned they are, and our ability to process the input. Our eyes can't see infra red or ultra violet. Without the help of modern equipment, you'd say it's a BS that it exists. So have we got the ultimate scientific equipment to conclude about everything?
@cycletrade That's nonsensical. UV rays and infrared lights can be shown to exist without us actually seeing them, because we can observe the effects that they have on everything around them. Just as we can speculate and say the Higgs Boson particle may exist, we would never say that it absolutely does. Theists are claiming that God absolutely exists without ANY evidence of him actually existing.
@bryanhaw1 Do you ever wonder why properties of gold differ from iron, why they even exist? Why 2H + O can be stable H2O? Why the speed of light must be 186000miles/sec? Why there are laws of nature, why should they exist the ways they do? Theist believe God makes them all happen. Richard Feynman says "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery.The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."
No amount of evidence is enough if you choose not to believe it.
@cycletrade These numbers could very well be different, but that's irrelevant. The universe is not at all suited for life, but life has a way of surviving wherever it can.
Even if this weren't true, NONE OF THIS IS PROOF OF A GOD.
"No amount of evidence is enough if you choose not to believe it." Tell that to young Earth creationists. The reason I don't believe your "evidence" is because none of it is evidence. Evidence is observed. Nothing you said can be observed or recreated.
@cycletrade One's personal experience will never be enough to prove a supernatural being that exists beyond matter. If a group of people in Georgia reported seeing a unicorn flying in the sky, would you then be convinced that unicorns exist? Of course not. You need more than that.
@cycletrade And what about Scientology and Mormonism? Both are religions were made practically overnight. Are they right too? It's absolutely absurd to say that every religion is correct and they're all just interpreted different. What is there to misinterpret? It's not like they're translating a holy book from one language to another, they're making them from scratch.
And in case you didn't know, Scientology was founded by the science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard.
@bryanhaw1 You'll either be too young or too naive to not understand that humans are capable to kill each for reasons beyond your wildest imagination. There are good and bad things/people, just like there are matter and anti matter. Average people will know that hurting others are bad thing. Yet, there are people with bad intentions to just wanting to hurt others. And if they labeled themselves as religious group will that make them good? Get real !
@cycletrade That was not my point at all. You said that all religions are God's word interpreted in different ways, which is ridiculous. I was pointing out that people took their beliefs so seriously that they were willing to kill those of other religions. And these killings were not isolated incidents committed by serial killers. You have heard of the crusades haven't you? Please address my other comments.
@bryanhaw1 What religions? I just said even bad people can call themselves religious group. Wolves can call themselves sheep. Stop trolling with labels.
I also said some people go to the extreme in the name of God. We had crusades, now we have jihad. The Church of England was established for political reason. Is Catholic church still go about waging religious war nowdays or continues with Spanish Inquisition?
@cycletrade You are completely missing the point that I'm trying to make.
"...everything is perceived usually by our interpretation limited to individual capacities. Hence the multitudes of religions to comprehend God..." is the statement I'm addressing. I'm trying to show the differences in religion. Killing others over their religion seems extreme now, but it did not use to. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing each other for thousands of years.
@bryanhaw1 My path is similar to yours, I wasn't even raised with any religion. My curiosity about God started at age 15. People of different religious beliefs shared their knowledge to me. I'm a Christian because of personal choice, for its many values that I perceive to be truthful, & because of spiritual views of things that to me are the acts of God. But, I'm not gonna say that being Christian is the only way to understand God. Everyone must make their own choice, even not to believe in God.
@cycletrade There are many, many different religions. Why choose Christianity? If you follow it just for the morals, you should know that Christianity has a TERRIBLE moral code. There are passages that say a rape victim must marry her rapist. Of course, we both know that's ludicrous. Morals are not derived from religion, we all have them.
Why don't you follow Islam or Judaism? And if you welcome all religions, how can you call yourself Christian? That would imply all others are wrong.
@bryanhaw1 That passage is an example of how human can err in communication. The actual translation from Hebrew word does not mean rape at all, it was sexual intercourse, more into act of adultery. But, surely atheist would rather use it for disinformation propaganda.
@cycletrade To describe the belief as irrational is simply fairness. Because it isn't based on reason, it is based on faith. Honesty is not accusation, and to say that faith is irrational isn't a claim that needs to be proven. It is a matter of definition. Say I believe on faith that there is a pink monkey in the forest. I ignore all reasonable challenges to that belief, because my faiths dictates I must. To sustain the faith. This is irrational.
So without structuring the sentence like a 3rd grader. You are essentially asking if observing the natural world and believing in things that are observable is any better evidence then a 2000 year old book with stories that do not much anything anyone has ever witnessed?
@cycletrade It is a humbling question. And people throughout time have been ready to believe whatever myths and fairy tales were popular at the time that explained it. So although I can't answer the question, does not mean I am going to start believing in whatever the most popular fairy tale of my era is.
@cycletrade Gravity cause stars to form, stars created other elements, those elements formed planets, and on at least one (most likely others), life began in a pool of water and amino acids, and from there, evolution took over.
Question to you: how does an all-powerful being explain the existence of anything, when such a being would need an even more complex explanation? God is the beginning is entirely invalid, as it has no basis of logic and the same could be argued for the universe.
@bryanhaw1, you are jumping in the middle of creation process. I wonder who wrote the law of the universe, of how things happen the way they are.
As to your question, that is a fair question that may never compute to our limited intellectual and mental capacity. Both atheist and theist can only have faith in what they believe in without ever finding the answer.
@bryanhaw1 BTW, no one ever succeed yet to create a life form in a lab using pool of water and amino acids. Synthia, the new synthetic life form is just a genetic engineering using an existing living cell as a host.
@cycletrade You asked how everything IN the universe came into existence, not how the universe came into existence. That is a question that i do not know the answer to, but to assert that there is a God just because we don't know the origin of the universe is an argument from ignorance. The way you're asking questions assumes that there is a God - "..who wrote the law of the universe.." There is the multiverse theory, but of course it isn't proven to be true.
@bryanhaw1 I cannot just ignore the history when our forefathers supposedly met God in person and handed down the scriptures about God's creations. Doing so would be ignorance too. But then again, any history are always questionable by some, and whether any convincing evidence is enough is such a subjective matter that form a belief or lack of it. If our scientific understanding is not advance enough to explain things, we can't be too arrogant to disregard other possibilities.
@cycletrade Every religion has a holy book telling stories of how they met their God. You ignore all of them except one. Is that ignorance? And denying the existence of a God is far from arrogant. There are three main reasons I don't believe.
1-Why would an omniscient God need to test us to see if we're worthy of Heaven? Wouldn't he know already?
2-If he is benevolent, then why is there evil in the world?
3-Wouldn't the creator of such a complex place beg an even more intricate explanation?
@bryanhaw1 I meant scriptures of all the religions that tell the stories about their God. I never said Bible specifically if that is what you think. We often think the ancients are unsophisticated dumb caveman because they didn't have scientific prowess as we have today, but we forget it has nothing to do with their spiritual ability.
You need to ask God for exact answers to your questions :) or read the religious holy book, such as bible to get some pointers.
@cycletrade Nobody thinks our ancestors were unsophisticated dumb cavemen, and I don't believe in a spirit, so that comment is null.
There are so many different holy books, all of which contradict each other and themselves. The older ones explained things like lightning, thunder, and rain, which shows that people just insert God into areas that they don't understand. You don't know how the universe was created, therefore it was God. That logic is invalid.
@bryanhaw1 True, theist place God in explaining things they don't understand. On the same token, atheist would rather believe in unproven hypothesis of theoretical physicist about how the universe and life come into existence.
You cannot apply logic in non-scientific things like religious beliefs, which is why it is called faith. Yet, it is illogical to "have faith" in scientific hypothesis and uphold it as the truth.
@cycletrade I would like for you to stop negating my questions and actually think about them. Question your faith. If God is benevolent, he won't mind if you think about it.
Here's another one for you - Omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence. If God is omniscient and knows the future, can he change the future with his omnipotence? If no, then he's not omnipotent. If yes, then he's not omniscient. Please think about it.
@bryanhaw1 Omniscience is not incompatible with omnipotence.
How would you know that He had not made some changes as you can only live a singular path in time? If you are to be struck dead in an accident and He changed that from happening, you wouldn't know it. And you still wouldn't know that He knows His involvement in this case is necessary in shaping your intended future.
@cycletrade If he knew what was going to happen all along, then he changed precisely nothing. There's a reason William Lane Craig says "as powerful as logically possible and knows all that is logically possible." Of course, that isn't what the bible says.
What are your answers to the other three arguments I've offered?
@bryanhaw1 I'm not a theologian. I can't give you satisfying answer as I'm too seeking the explanations. I believe in God not because of any logic as it does not apply to it. I also believe our science will progress to explain many "mysteries of God", and my bet is it will even make me even more humble of how great God is.
We are merely a spec of dust in the existence of universe far from having brain power to comprehend God. But we surely can sense it if we are not too proud of ourselves.
@cycletrade Theologians can't answer these questions either. It's because God is an outdated concept that is no longer needed in our society and doesn't truly exist. You should realize that these are not "mysteries of God", but instead mysteries of the universe, and answers will eventually be found. At what point do we know enough of how we came to exist to say that God is an unneeded entity?
I hope you find the courage to overcome your indoctrination and become delighted by the truth.
@bryanhaw1 LOL... lets call faith as insurance of our afterlife. Since we only have short life to find such answers which may never come in our lifetime. We can't just disregard the wisdom of the past. Einstein says: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. That is clue enough for me.
@cycletrade The wisdom of the past? You're reading story books and believing them to be true. People made these stories up to answer questions of the universe, which we know some of the answers to, but not all. However, we are a very young species and will find them in due time.
Pascals Wager requires you to live a lie. If you "believe" because you think it's the smarter choice, then you don't really believe. And which religion do you choose? There are thousands, all equally credible.
@bryanhaw1 There are story books and history books. I sure you can agree that we must learn the wisdom of history for the eternal truths it contains.
Another reason I believe in God because of who I am as a person that have soul and emotion. Science has not really tap into this, yet you know you have these and that what makes you alive, not just a bunch of body organs.
@bryanhaw1 I'm not making presumption that if we know enough how we came to exist then there is no God. On the contrary, it may even add proof that God exist.
Here are simple scientific questions: we know gravity, chemical elements, energy exist in our physical universe. But can you explain why should there is gravity? why the elements exist? why such properties to these elements? where the energy in the universe come from? where the energy to make the big bang come from?
@cycletrade You need to research physics a bit. The higgs boson particle is thought to give mass to all atoms in the universe. We of course, doesn't know if it truly exists, but ignorance can never be used as proof of God. Our ignorance is temporary.
The total energy level in the universe is exactly 0. There is negative and positive energy and they all balance out to be 0.
Dark energy is thought to have caused the big bang, but once again, even if it's wrong, that's not proof of anything.
@bryanhaw1 Higgs boson particle is a theoretical things to fit in the the theoretical higgs mechanism. Its a bunch of theories built upon theories in quantum physics. These at this stage are merely speculations as you indicated. I don't see anywhere I implied our lacking in science as a proof of God. I'm only being open minded that our progression in science may possibly enhance our comprehension about God existence. Hence my personal believe that it MAY add proof that God exist.
@cycletrade You asked me questions of the universe that science cannot answer, calling them "simple scientific questions". That seemed to me to be an attempt at showing that since we don't know the answers, there must be a higher power.
Why are you stating God's existence as an axiom? It is far from it. It is the most far fetched idea that humans have ever proposed. Why believe anything when there is absolutely no evidence for it?
@bryanhaw1 No, I'm only showing that our science is not there yet to conclude God does not exists.
Evidence of God's existence are abound, not necessarily can be proven through science or logical thinking. It takes spiritual sensor in you to sense it.
@cycletrade So you're saying that God's existence cannot be logically shown, you just know that he exists because you know? It's more likely that you just believe because you were raised to believe. I don't know what more to say to you, you're standing in a completely irrational position and refuse to budge.
@bryanhaw1 There you go again using logic to call me irrational ;) I told you to use the spiritual sensor which is your heart to sense God. Let me ask you, do you ever feel love in your life? If you do, is a start to open your better understanding about God, because God is about the energy of love. Forget about finding scientific explanation about love, you wont find it there. It is something you must feel by putting logic aside. Check this out /watch?v=EQ6YJkVHf48 and /watch?v=CuFGzqULOg0
@cycletrade You are, by definition, being irrational. I hope you're not saying you can actually feel with your heart. And love can be explained by Darwinian explanations. However, we don't know what chemical causes it. Once again, you're going to arguments from ignorance. Science can't fully explain love yet, therefore God exists. It doesn't work that way.
This is a clear demonstration of how religion slows science. You wouldn't even look for a scientific answer for love because of God.
@bryanhaw1 Darwin is the most absurd reference that speculate how love works in cross gender and social/community needs. Love extend beyond relationship of same species. If you care to check out those lyrics in the links I posted and sink sometime to think with your heart and put aside logic, you'll probably get it.
@bryanhaw1 We are not discussing about natural selection which I do understand as possible process in explaining the existence/evolution of life. If your darwinian reference to love is to augment the natural selection process, then there the absurdity lies because love has greater dimensions of meanings other than just sexual context.
@cycletrade Love would not be a result of sex. I agree, that's completely absurd. That is not the Darwinian explanation for love. You really should Google it because I would need much more space than I have here to explain it, and I don't really care to do so.
@bryanhaw1 I said sexual context (which serve the purpose for survival of the species), I did not meant sex as you put it. But lets throw this side track away from this discussion anyway. We both have close to 5 pages of comment already in this thread.
@cycletrade I asked how much we need to know to show that there is no God. I did not say we know enough. I asked this hoping you would realize on your own that the idea of God was designed so that no matter how much we know, it can never be disproved.
So these are you claims?
1 - I have a spirit. Science cannot show it and science offers a better alternative, but I know i have a spirit because I know.
2 - I know God exists. I know this because I can feel it with my spirit.
@cycletrade Asking unanswered questions of science and presenting it as proof of God is called an argument from ignorance.
"I can think of two answers, X and Y. X is wrong, therefore Y is correct." The error lies in one's ability, or lack thereof, to think of all the possibilities.
Or, "I can only think of one answer, X. Therefore, X is correct." The same logical fallacy applies.
@bryanhaw1 Just to make things clear, I have nothing against science. I actually embrace science and look up to future findings of proven facts (not unproven theories) that may support my belief in God.
To think of all possibilities also means to admit that we are not there yet to say any conclusion that God does not exist.
@cycletrade I wasn't asserting that if we know how we came to exist, then there is no God. I was saying that if we know how we came to exist, then we have no reason to believe in a God, and therefore need a greater amount of evidence to believe he exists.
@cycletrade Regardless, just because we don't know the answer to something, you shouldn't insert God as an answer, especially when there is no evidence of a God existing. It only slows down our search for answers.
And I would like to point out that atheists are without faith, by definition.
@cycletrade The Universe may have always existed. There was a singularity before the "big bang, which was basically all the matter in the Universe, condensed into something no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. It may be that there was a Universe before this one, which had "crunched" inward, to form the singularity. We have more evidence of this idea than we do of yours.
@lazerbeam134, There is really no evidence other than ideas of theoretical physics. But, your faith in it is just as strong as the theist faith in God.. LOL...
@cycletrade Do you understand how one arrives at an idea in theoretical physics? If you did, you might understand that it is not a question of faith, but of reason.
@lazerbeam134 You are mixing the context. Currently, science can only speculate/theorize based on man made formulas, reasoning, observations of limited sensing equipment. These hypothesis are far from being the proven truth. Yet, atheist clinging to it as if having "faith" that it is the ultimate truth, and readily omit non scientific possibility like existence of God.
Are we really that grand to be so proud to say we've found the truth of the universe?
@cycletrade You're missing the context, actually. There is no faith at all, and there is no claim that this is absolute truth. Currently, the CERN Large Hadron Collider has discovered what may be the Higgs Boson. What I said is that scientific theory holds a greater weight of evidence than religious doctrine. Because of the way we arrive at scientific theories requires extensive work, rather than declaring it is so because wish it to be so. It isn't speculation, it is actual work.
@lazerbeam134 You fail to see the big picture. One famous passage in Ecclesiastes says "there is nothing new under the sun". What scientist have done are merely rediscovering things that has been put in existence, and they haven't uncover everything yet. If big bang is even can be proven true, the question is still why must it happened?Thus the believe in the ultimate creator called God.
@cycletrade No, not really. You are essentially using the "first mover" argument, which has a huge flaw. The premise, basically. The notion is that everything stems from else, everything has a cause or reason. You decide this is God, and then say he is exempt from living up to premise himself, because he is an "unmoved mover". So the problem is God's relationship to existence. If what exists had to have been created, and God exists, then God was created. Who made God?
@lazerbeam134 And if God did not have to be created, or wasn't created, then God can't possibly exist as part of existence. Then he exists outside of existence. See how that is an issue? Also, of course something has to exist for science to give us information about it. That is the point of science, to explain natural phenomenon. Sometimes the explanations show that the Bible is wrong. Because the people who wrote it didn't have the knowledge.
@lazerbeam134 I think it is good to want to progress beyond primitive knowledge. If the Bible was the eternal word of god, revealed to man, then our science would confirm information in the Bible regarding the Universe and nature. But that hasn't been the case. The Bible teaches young earth creationism, the geocentric model, and a very absurd theory of human reproduction. Also, it was said that humans lived to be centuries old. Something there is no evidence of.
@lazerbeam134 The universe, nature can't spontaneously exists.The cause it exist can't be nature because nature can't cause itself. Your notion gets invalid, because it goes into infinity, and that'll be a scientific nightmare.
So what's left must be a supernatural being beyond the realm of physical matter, time, and space. Hence the logic about cause and effect can't apply to God.
@cycletrade Again, you reiterate the first mover argument. Why can't nature cause itself? What have we seen that suggests that nature isn't self sustaining? I think it is pretty damn clear from observation that it is. My notion isn't invalid; yours is. That is my point. God needs a creator, if all that exists needs a creator. How do you know anything exists outside of matter, time and space? You are saying God exists outside of existence. Might as well say he doesn't exist.
@lazerbeam134 Forget about God for a while. So based on your observation you propose that the universe simply exists and has been existed INFINITELY with all the laws of nature and characteristics/properties?
@cycletrade That is one way to look at it. But rather, I would say the Universe we know seems to have existed for about 13 billion years so far, and may continue for much longer. Infinity is an interesting concept. We might conclude that the Universe is infinite, because we have no practical way to measure it to be finite. So it infinite in a practical sense. I am proposing that the Universe can exist independent of external forces. Because we have no knowledge of external forces.
@lazerbeam134 Basically, it is a matter of what is the simplest answer we can come up with based on what we observe to be true. There is nothing that suggests that there needs to be an external force to sustain the existence of the universe. And honestly, as a matter of definition, can an external even exist? The Universe is defined as the sum total of existence. Hence, that which is outside the Universe is outside of existence. What is outside the realm of existence must not exist
@lazerbeam134 Those are speculations, estimates, based on current scientific instrument/probes. We may get better estimation in the future. Perhaps, one day we'll know not only HOW the universe exists but also WHY the universe exists. But until then, what science can describe today is no better than Johnny fairies in the closet.
BTW, I didn't say a supernatural being outside of existence. I meant an extraordinary being not affected by the existence as we know it bind by matter, time, & space.
@cycletrade We may get a better estimation in the future, but that doesn't mean it is wrong now. You seem to not get that. It isn't wrong until it is wrong. You assume why matters. That is the difference here. Why has no relevance, it is the realm of philosophy. And philosophy is an area, that while interesting, lacks a certain surgical precision to dictate the nature of reality. Science is better than fairies. By the sheer fact that it is required to test itself. You don't get that?
@cycletrade Matter time and space sounds about appropriate to define as the set of "existence". Talking about anything else is as meaningful as masturbation. It felt good maybe, but what did it accomplish? And I have been mulling this over today actually. The question of WHY. Why is an interesting word. Your beliefs rely entirely on the supposition that why matters. But can you ever answer why? Not that I can see. So you can arbitrarily declare the reason why as you see fit.
@cycletrade Sorry to post so many responses at once, character limits are sucky. So, what I am saying is that How concerns me as a matter of practicality. Why is anyone's guess. Have you any familiarity with Pascal's Wager? There was a video made by a YouTuber, TheraminTrees, where he addressed it. In it, he establishes that the wager is flawed in the fact that once must deal with the infinite competing whys. How is much more simple. You can observe how things happen.
@rorstar83 ugh dude atheists have a lack of belief there isnt any prove that god doesnt exist but theres no prove that he does either and until you can present some prove god fits in the catigory of santa, bigfoot, the lockness, monster, pixies, unicorns, and so on so forth get your facts straight the burden of prove is on the claimer. if i told you that bigfoot was real i would have to prove it you wouldnt have to prove he doesnt now would you. same thing just replace the world bigfoot with god
Why is it so hard for religious people to understand that I don't need any proof to not believe in something? All I need is a lack of convincing evidence for it.
I don't know there is no god, but based on the evidence (witch is different than proof) I think it is 99,5% plausible.
That means I will live my life under the assumption there is no god, and that we have only this life and are ourself responsible to make the most out of it.
It is unnecessary to use religion to form a lack of belief in "god". Are you forgetting deism (which is more a perspective on what "god" is, w/o resorting to religious practices)? All one needs in order to not believe a claim about "god" is what the claimant says about "god"'s qualities/behaviors, regardless of religion.
This has been flagged as spam show
Happy New Year 2012. Too bad for atheist, it is probably an insignificant event of Gregorian calendar (a christian contribution to science, mind you). Surely there is nothing to wish and hope for because that will be illogical. Must be a sad thing to be atheist.
cycletrade 2 months ago
Whoever is flagging legitimate arguments/points on here as spam, should stop doing so.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 I was talking about creation but you mentioned about sustaining. Let's entertain that too. Sustaining complexity goes with the given law of the universe. How could such law exist to enable the universe to sustain itself? can we as intelligent beings just exist not because of intelligent laws of the universe? How could such intelligent exist?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Because intelligence as we understand has arisen out of natural processes. The only gauge of intelligence we have is ourselves. It would seem natural to think that there must be some greater intelligence, if you are unwilling to recognize that intelligence is just a way to deal with the world. The problem here is that you assign magical properties to intelligence. Intelligence is simply a response to stimuli.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 It's a larger picture of intelligence. The matter in cosmos like we find in periodic table of elements have definite number and unique properties. The way they react along with gravity and energy are predefined. Science can observe then make assumptions because those things are not random but very orderly. That's pretty much what science can do so far. Personally, I believe there is a maker, a designer that place all the fundamentals needed in this universe.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You believe. But do you know? Can you know? And observation doesn't lead to assumptions, it leads to conclusions. It's going from A to Z. Not from A to 7. This is a logical sequence. And actually, randomness is entirely in line with the idea of natural law. If you roll dice, the result is random, correct? You have 6 possible outcomes per die, and the permutations possible are determined by the number of die you roll. But you cannot say the outcome is predetermined.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 dice*; The outcome is random; but the process that generates the outcome follows physics.I couldn't break it down step by step, because of how small it is and how fast it happens. The "predefined" aspects of nature are not predefined. God didn't write out the Periodic Table; we did. We ascribed the notion of "properties" as a mean to describe nature. And gravity is one of four fundamental forces, that we are only beginning to understand. IE, the Higgs Boson ref.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Your dice example is irrelevant, we know for a fact the speed of light, the chemical properties of hydrogen, and the fact the 2H+O makes water the basic necessity for life to exist & evolve. Either you are trolling, or too uninformed like Bill O'Reilly. That's the kind of the orderly intelligent, non-random fact which exist in our cosmos. The intelligent are about why those matters exist and the law of physics attributed to them.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade And we know for a fact that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Obviously you are set to prove my point. The dice example is perfectly relevant, you simply fail to see it. Do the laws of physics apply to rolling dice? Do they or do they not? Similarly, the laws of chemistry would apply to the formation of molecular compounds. Such as DNA, which has random variations. This is a fact we know. "Order" isn't proof of intelligence. The die roll is random, but has rules.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 I take it you are being uninformed. The dice spewed a number depended on what material it was made, the weight & smoothness of geometry, the gravitational force of the geographical location, the force it was thrown, the density and type of matter it hit upon and the angle it was hit. ALL these say there is a law of physics at work. The question is WHY there is a law of physics and WHY it has very specific character/attributes to it. Why not any other attributes. Get it?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade I am not uninformed. The outcome is still random. The laws of physics apply, but there is a 1 in 6 chance that any given number will turn up on any given roll of a die. Again, we can talk about why the rules are the way they are all day, and neither of us would be right. You would say God made them that way. Why does God exist, if why is so important? What God exists? Why should your God be the true God? I have faced this all before, kid.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Science never get to describing the how it exist much less the WHY it exist. Science is unable to provide alternative answer to WHY is there existence as we know it. Therefore it is irrational for its lack of merit to be use by atheist to deem faith in believing God as irrational.
Faith in God is not a blind believe. It come from scientific observations too, from factual historical references, from philosophical views and from personal experiences.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Faith in God can't be anymore than blind. You prove it every time you write a response. You haven't even really considered anything I have said, because it challenges your faith. Science lacks merit? You just said that we know scientific theories to be factual. Science is endlessly explaining how nature works. You have listed examples yourself. You are distorting what you hear to justify your faith.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@cycletrade And I will also point out, you seem to want to ignore many points. Possibly because it scares you to see a question you can't answer, or to face a truth that might lead you to question your programming. Because religion is programming. It is social, psychological, and emotional programming. You have been deceived.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Then there is life, a force we can observe to exists because it is with us, yet science has never able to explain much less create one. No one yet able to mix cosmos ingredients into something alive. It takes something alive to make another living being.
We are good in science to explain certain HOW, not all, but really sucks in explaining WHY.
HOW without WHY can never get to a complete TRUTH.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Scientific endeavors are growing closer to that eventuality too. We have created the various building blocks of life, and with more research, an artificial life form might be a reality. The proposition you present is that gaps in knowledge should be filled with god. The problem with the God of the gaps is that it doesn't actually answer the question, it creates more. What God is it? How did it come to be itself? Then you see gaps in God. You are moving further from truth
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Again, I would like to point out that "why" is irrelevant. This is a problem that people like Bill O'Reilly have. He asked once "Why does the sun come up, and go down? Why do the tides come in, and go out?" He claimed there was no explanation. Because he asked a stupid question. Why is irrelevant, because there are an infinity of possible "whys' to contend with. There is only one how, and that is based on observation and the scientific method. I have a question for you.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 cont... My question is, if God is the creator of all things, and he has given us a holy text. The Bible for example, then why would the information in the Bible not be able to withstand the scrutiny of scientific method? Why would the Bible be wrong about cosmology? (Geocentric model) Why would it each that the many forms of life were "poof'd" into being by God, when the real evidence shows that evolution explains speciation? Why would it not reveal that the Sun is a star?
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
Could it be that the concept of God is an invented one? That it is a product of human intelligence. You argue that human intelligence was crafted by God. I would suggest that it was the other way around. Are you aware of how many gods mankind has dreamed up? Why don't you believe in them?
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Did you even read the Bible? where in the bible that makes you think it was wrong about cosmology? Do you even think about the time reference when Bible was written and how it was related to the minimal scientific understanding of the people at that time?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Yes. And you have argued against yourself. If the time reference matters, than it wasn't influenced by God. In the Bible it is stated that the Sun travels around the Earth. "when Bible was written and how it was related to the minimal scientific understanding of the people at that time?" So you admit that Man invented God. Congrats.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Things written in the Bible stands the truth eternally. You can't expect it have to contain explanation about quantum physics in it. The understanding that the Sun is a star come much later when human has better understanding in science about the stars.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You did it again. The Bible is the eternal word of God, you say on one hand/ On the other you say, "but people didn't know so you can't expect it to be in there." God would know, so he would tell humans. I am referring to the story of Jericho, when God stopped the Sun in the sky. Now, the Earth either stopped spinning, which would kill everyone. Or the cosmos was geocentric. Which we found is not the case.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 And in Genesis, God created the Sun and Stars separately. The Sun is a star, so why would he create them separately? And you can't say that the Sun is the youngest or oldest star, because that is unlikely to be the case. It is in a very young stage atm. We see older stars from Earth with a telescope. So, what you conclude is that Man invented the Bible, and that means also maybe Man invented God.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Sun is the name we call the star where earth revolve. It was referenced distinctly and named because it relates in many ways to our lives directly instead of those other stars. What importance is that anyway to your statement?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Because the Bible is talking about the nature of the Universe, and is inaccurate. The Bible doesn't specify that it is distinct because of its relationship to Earth; it was literally believed to be something different from the stars.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Stop mumbling senseless words and taking things out of context. Do we need to replace the words SUNRISE and SUNSET with something else more representative to our current knowledge about cosmos? It's a matter of descriptions, and yes some people had misinterpreted it. So what? it's only human to err. The real essence about the truth, the love of God which resulted in the creation is still there.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Love of God? Really? What about all the genocide, murder, rape, and general suffering God inflicted on his children? What about the punishment of eternal suffering in Hell? Is that love? Would you punish your child forever with immense and unimaginable pain for disobeying your wishes? Is that love?
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Unless you believe that God is the Creator you never grasp the how story in Jericho can happen. You only able to equate God to human abilities therefore fail to recognize power of the Creator of cosmos. The believer call it miracle.
Miracle still happens today, many have experience it where things happened seems to defy logic/science/possibilities. Yet it happened and observed.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Name one. Name one miracle in the modern age. Name one example of natural law defied by the hand of God. if you could we would not be having this conversation. You are copping out of the internal logic necessary for a belief to be vindicated objectively. I suggest you look at a video by TheraminTrees called Atheism as Congruence/Transition to Atheism. You will see that you are simply warping reality to defend your faith.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Name one modern age miracle? The 20th century Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal, where 3 little shepherds saw the apparition of Blessed Virgin Mary, then a miraculous event of the Sun that appeared "dancing" and all sort that a normal Sun wouldn't do. The event witnessed by 100.000 people and recorded by the local papers. That was one big miracle event. Other more personal, like miracle of healing, miracle of protection from harm, have been experienced by believers worldwide.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade That was a hoax, according to all people, CHRISTIANS. Now I am sure of your particular brand of Christianity...you sir are a Catholic. But also debunked by more scientifically minded people,,, skeptoid-com--episodes4110 (add in dots in slashes where I put the -'s,
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@cycletrade "Faith healing" can be explained by psychology; mind over matter. When one has a positive attitude about a disease or injury, they tend to have more confidence that their medications and therapies will work. Protection miracles sound like a bunch of bullshit just by default. And in general, it would be a good idea for you to look into the phenomenon of perceiving order in chaos. See also pareidolia.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Hey, do you notice even today we still call it SUNRISE and SUNSET? Do we all really meant the Sun revolves around the earth?
Don't twist meanings, if you haven't read the bible, don't even reference it without understanding the whole meanings in it.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade I have read the Bible. I wouldn't reference it if I hadn't read it. The Quran also supports the geocentric model. Did you honestly think I would have decided to be an atheist without first examining other options? That there never was a time in my life that I wanted there to be something special about me and the world I live in? It was education about world religions that shaped who I am. There ave been many Gods. You believe in only one more than I do.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 You know you are created with freewill. That means they will be those like atheist that choose not to believe in God and loss the awareness of God, deceived by their own arrogance, hide behind accomplishment of science which has not & will not disprove God, blinded to see God presence in every creation and existence.
I have say enough in this thread and will not continue. May God saves your souls.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade U MAD BRO?
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Omitting importance of "why" looks just a convenience to you isn't it? Because you have no base in scientific answer to that. In any event, there is a WHY that makes that thing happened. Thinking things just happened is illogical.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You apparently need to have things spelled out for you. WHY is a question of meaning, implicit that there was a reason behind it. You can come up with any answer to that question, and it is ARBITRARY. So, this isn't saying that things just happened necessarily, but if it were...then it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Because the way it all works would be the same. The difference? Your meaning is lost.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 If you have been starved for 10 days, and you finally found food to eat, is there any other reason that you ate it other than because your body needs it badly, or you would delude yourself thinking it is just for the fun and taste of it?
Saying anything can be any reason and arbitrary is fooling yourself. There is a true reason, one that is most likely among possible answers to WHYs.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade My body needs food, because of HOW my body works. You are failing again to see the point. What is arbitrary are the answers to questions like "Why does the Universe exist?" "Why do I need to eat food?" Is not the same, because it can be explained by looking at How your body works. Something tangible. I am talking about the notion that there is a grand scheme or deeper meaning to explain existence. You have no way to justify that.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
I'm a Christian, and even I can say this question sucks! Atheists don't use religion to form a lack of belief, that's like saying that if there were no religions, then they'd be no atheists because there's no religion to base there lack of faith on. They base lack of faith on science, which would exist regardless of the existance of any religious text. And we're not born atheist, since atheism in a choice to not believe, and we're not born understanding the concept of God, so can't make a choice
KurtCobain198666 3 months ago
@KurtCobain198666 it sucks if you don't truly believe or have faith. They cant answer it, that's the beauty of it lol, puts em in a paradox of answers, none which truly answer it that isn't some sort of sarcasm aswell.. pisses em right off, just look at the replies so far :)
rorstar83 3 months ago
@rorstar83 The problem with your question, is that it is fundamentally stupid.
lazerbeam134 3 months ago
@rorstar83 The question is convoluted beyond comprehension.
1-Religion isn't always the bible. There are many other religions.
2-You don't lack belief because of proof, you lack belief because of a lack of proof on the side of the accuser. If I say that there's pixies in my closet, naturally, you wouldn't believe me. This isn't because of the "proof of lack of belief", but instead the lack of proof of my proposal that there's fairies in my closet. It's a basic shift of the burden of proof.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Once again you fail to be open minded of non-science possibility. You said you lack belief because of a lack of proof. I've showed you that science has not offer proof that God does not exist nor have proven answers to questions about universe and creations. Let me ask you, do you believe what science theorizes? By your own definition, you cannot believe that those science theories to be the truth.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You pretending that souls and God axiomatically exist. You must prove these things.
Yes, I lack belief because theists lack proof. Offer me proof that there are not invisible pixies in my closet. You can't. Look up burden of proof. It's on the theists, not atheists.
In order for something to become a scientific theory, it must stand through rigorous peer review and scrutiny. Theories come about because of material evidence.
By my own definition of what?
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 You haven't give me your answer. You said that "2-You don't lack belief because of proof, you lack belief because of a lack of proof on the side of the accuser."
You agree that science has not come with proven facts about the how universe came to be and how there are things that exists in the universe.
So, if you need scientific proof to believe in something, wouldn't that mean you cannot yet believe whatever hypothesis science says about this matter until such proof can be presented?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade There is no scientific hypothesis that explains how anything/everything exists. I admit my ignorance on the question, as will most people. Once again, this doesn't mean anything, as I have shown how arguments from ignorance are invalid.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade You also seem to misunderstand atheism. I'm not saying God is impossible and absolutely does not exist, I am rejecting all claims that there is a God because there has been no proof. I don't need proof for my disbelief because I'm not making a proposal, I'm denying one that lacks proof.
Once again, you cannot disprove pixies, but (I hope) you don't believe they exist because there's no proof of them. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 You keep asking proof of God through scientific means, which hasn't happen, and may not ever happen, because we humans might not have enough IQ through science to prove/disprove that there is God.
By all means you are entitled not to believe in God, but to say theist believe in God is irrational and illogical are also wrong, because then you are becoming the accuser thus need to proof that claim.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade It's not because we're not smart enough, it's because the evidence isn't there. IQ shows one's potential for comprehension. However, the idea of a God is not a complex one at all, and most people can grasp what is required to prove such an idea.
You have openly admitted that your belief in a God is irrational and illogical, and claimed that you have to "feel" God (which is utterly ludicrous). Saying this in no way shifts the burden of proof to me.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade Lets imagine that a guy named Johnny claims that there are invisible fairies in his closet, and if one lets one's heart think, one can "feel" them. Obviously, I can say that Johnny's claim is completely absurd, irrational, and illogical, yet I still don't have to prove they don't exist. He has to prove that they do exist for the claim to be rational.
It would be impossible to give proof that there aren't fairies in his closet, but no one in their right mind would believe him.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 If you can feel it too, would you believe it? even if there is no scientific proof?
cycletrade 2 months ago
Comment removed
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cycletrade To quote Carl Sagan, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade God is something of which you are taught. Those who claim otherwise are misguided.
I was born into a family where both of my parents were raised Christian, but are now agnostic. Never once did they mention God or religion to me, and I was never brought to church. God, in my mind, equated to things such as the Loch Ness monster and Big Foot. It wasn't until the age of 13 or so that I realized some people genuinely believed in God. You are not born believing in God.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 I agree. Almost everything we know are passed down to us or taught by others such as other human, other living beings, in physical or non-physical dimensions. There are things we personally experience and can add/subtract/change such knowledge.
Above all everything is perceived usually by our interpretation limited to individual capacities. Hence the multitudes of religions to comprehend God, or the differing opinions of scientific theories.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade I don't think everything is limited by our IQ. There are some things, such as quantum mechanics and thermodynamics which requires a high IQ to fully understand, but this is not the case with most things.
The fact that there are so many different religions shows how they are made by humans and different ones arise in different areas, based on what the people in that region happen to make up.
There are only contradicting scientific theories in highly theoretical areas of science.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 The face of religions are interpretation of human thoughts throughout history. Some become extremist in the name of God. That is just typical human. We just have to sieve the essence & the real values in it. If I don't stand by the sidewalks and preach the end is near, am I less Christian? I really don't care with labeling anyway.
Holybooks never came down on man overnight, nor God ever declare any religion. He works with individuals whom passed the message down the generations.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade If these are just different interpretations of the same story, why have people been killing each other over them for thousands of years? Clearly, they're more than just different versions of the same story. Judaism says there isn't a hell, Christianity says there is. That fact makes the two religions extremely different, and no misinterpretation could bring about such a huge difference.
What do you make of polytheism? It's still around today.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Lord Kelvin once said there will be no more fundamental discoveries in physic to be made. So, you see even when a genius could make such mistakes, many other things and concepts may be perceived differently by individuals.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Those things are absolutely, fundamentally different. Science is based on things we can observe. As we develop more technology, there is more we can observe. Have you ever considered that Jesus was lying or was a schizophrenic? I believe Jesus believed he was the son of God. However all the story's of eyewitness accounts were written no less that 100 years after his death. Nobody who actually saw him alive wrote any part of the bible.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 You better think further of the word observation. Whatever you perceive through whatever you observe really depends of the senses we have, how fine tuned they are, and our ability to process the input. Our eyes can't see infra red or ultra violet. Without the help of modern equipment, you'd say it's a BS that it exists. So have we got the ultimate scientific equipment to conclude about everything?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade That's nonsensical. UV rays and infrared lights can be shown to exist without us actually seeing them, because we can observe the effects that they have on everything around them. Just as we can speculate and say the Higgs Boson particle may exist, we would never say that it absolutely does. Theists are claiming that God absolutely exists without ANY evidence of him actually existing.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Do you ever wonder why properties of gold differ from iron, why they even exist? Why 2H + O can be stable H2O? Why the speed of light must be 186000miles/sec? Why there are laws of nature, why should they exist the ways they do? Theist believe God makes them all happen. Richard Feynman says "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery.The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."
No amount of evidence is enough if you choose not to believe it.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade These numbers could very well be different, but that's irrelevant. The universe is not at all suited for life, but life has a way of surviving wherever it can.
Even if this weren't true, NONE OF THIS IS PROOF OF A GOD.
"No amount of evidence is enough if you choose not to believe it." Tell that to young Earth creationists. The reason I don't believe your "evidence" is because none of it is evidence. Evidence is observed. Nothing you said can be observed or recreated.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Other people have observed and experienced it. Not good enough for you?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade One's personal experience will never be enough to prove a supernatural being that exists beyond matter. If a group of people in Georgia reported seeing a unicorn flying in the sky, would you then be convinced that unicorns exist? Of course not. You need more than that.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
Comment removed
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade And what about Scientology and Mormonism? Both are religions were made practically overnight. Are they right too? It's absolutely absurd to say that every religion is correct and they're all just interpreted different. What is there to misinterpret? It's not like they're translating a holy book from one language to another, they're making them from scratch.
And in case you didn't know, Scientology was founded by the science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 You'll either be too young or too naive to not understand that humans are capable to kill each for reasons beyond your wildest imagination. There are good and bad things/people, just like there are matter and anti matter. Average people will know that hurting others are bad thing. Yet, there are people with bad intentions to just wanting to hurt others. And if they labeled themselves as religious group will that make them good? Get real !
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade That was not my point at all. You said that all religions are God's word interpreted in different ways, which is ridiculous. I was pointing out that people took their beliefs so seriously that they were willing to kill those of other religions. And these killings were not isolated incidents committed by serial killers. You have heard of the crusades haven't you? Please address my other comments.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 What religions? I just said even bad people can call themselves religious group. Wolves can call themselves sheep. Stop trolling with labels.
I also said some people go to the extreme in the name of God. We had crusades, now we have jihad. The Church of England was established for political reason. Is Catholic church still go about waging religious war nowdays or continues with Spanish Inquisition?
Now please deduce where the problem lies.
cycletrade 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cycletrade You are completely missing the point that I'm trying to make.
"...everything is perceived usually by our interpretation limited to individual capacities. Hence the multitudes of religions to comprehend God..." is the statement I'm addressing. I'm trying to show the differences in religion. Killing others over their religion seems extreme now, but it did not use to. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing each other for thousands of years.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 My path is similar to yours, I wasn't even raised with any religion. My curiosity about God started at age 15. People of different religious beliefs shared their knowledge to me. I'm a Christian because of personal choice, for its many values that I perceive to be truthful, & because of spiritual views of things that to me are the acts of God. But, I'm not gonna say that being Christian is the only way to understand God. Everyone must make their own choice, even not to believe in God.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade There are many, many different religions. Why choose Christianity? If you follow it just for the morals, you should know that Christianity has a TERRIBLE moral code. There are passages that say a rape victim must marry her rapist. Of course, we both know that's ludicrous. Morals are not derived from religion, we all have them.
Why don't you follow Islam or Judaism? And if you welcome all religions, how can you call yourself Christian? That would imply all others are wrong.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 That passage is an example of how human can err in communication. The actual translation from Hebrew word does not mean rape at all, it was sexual intercourse, more into act of adultery. But, surely atheist would rather use it for disinformation propaganda.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade If that were the case, Johnny and braynhaw1 would be treated as subjects with a shared delusion.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@cycletrade To describe the belief as irrational is simply fairness. Because it isn't based on reason, it is based on faith. Honesty is not accusation, and to say that faith is irrational isn't a claim that needs to be proven. It is a matter of definition. Say I believe on faith that there is a pink monkey in the forest. I ignore all reasonable challenges to that belief, because my faiths dictates I must. To sustain the faith. This is irrational.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
I'd like to ask.. what if im buddhist? i dont believe in God.. i believe in nature and reincarnation and nirvana.. what does that make me huh?
enflans 3 months ago
@enflans It makes you a Buddhist....
KurtCobain198666 3 months ago
@KurtCobain198666 LOL
enflans 3 months ago
So without structuring the sentence like a 3rd grader. You are essentially asking if observing the natural world and believing in things that are observable is any better evidence then a 2000 year old book with stories that do not much anything anyone has ever witnessed?
The answer is yes.
SOADOGSOWNZ1 3 months ago
Question to atheist: how you think every existence in the universe come to be without an ultimate creator?
cycletrade 3 months ago
@cycletrade It is a humbling question. And people throughout time have been ready to believe whatever myths and fairy tales were popular at the time that explained it. So although I can't answer the question, does not mean I am going to start believing in whatever the most popular fairy tale of my era is.
SOADOGSOWNZ1 3 months ago
@cycletrade Gravity cause stars to form, stars created other elements, those elements formed planets, and on at least one (most likely others), life began in a pool of water and amino acids, and from there, evolution took over.
Question to you: how does an all-powerful being explain the existence of anything, when such a being would need an even more complex explanation? God is the beginning is entirely invalid, as it has no basis of logic and the same could be argued for the universe.
bryanhaw1 3 months ago
@bryanhaw1, you are jumping in the middle of creation process. I wonder who wrote the law of the universe, of how things happen the way they are.
As to your question, that is a fair question that may never compute to our limited intellectual and mental capacity. Both atheist and theist can only have faith in what they believe in without ever finding the answer.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 BTW, no one ever succeed yet to create a life form in a lab using pool of water and amino acids. Synthia, the new synthetic life form is just a genetic engineering using an existing living cell as a host.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You asked how everything IN the universe came into existence, not how the universe came into existence. That is a question that i do not know the answer to, but to assert that there is a God just because we don't know the origin of the universe is an argument from ignorance. The way you're asking questions assumes that there is a God - "..who wrote the law of the universe.." There is the multiverse theory, but of course it isn't proven to be true.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 I cannot just ignore the history when our forefathers supposedly met God in person and handed down the scriptures about God's creations. Doing so would be ignorance too. But then again, any history are always questionable by some, and whether any convincing evidence is enough is such a subjective matter that form a belief or lack of it. If our scientific understanding is not advance enough to explain things, we can't be too arrogant to disregard other possibilities.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Every religion has a holy book telling stories of how they met their God. You ignore all of them except one. Is that ignorance? And denying the existence of a God is far from arrogant. There are three main reasons I don't believe.
1-Why would an omniscient God need to test us to see if we're worthy of Heaven? Wouldn't he know already?
2-If he is benevolent, then why is there evil in the world?
3-Wouldn't the creator of such a complex place beg an even more intricate explanation?
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 I meant scriptures of all the religions that tell the stories about their God. I never said Bible specifically if that is what you think. We often think the ancients are unsophisticated dumb caveman because they didn't have scientific prowess as we have today, but we forget it has nothing to do with their spiritual ability.
You need to ask God for exact answers to your questions :) or read the religious holy book, such as bible to get some pointers.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Nobody thinks our ancestors were unsophisticated dumb cavemen, and I don't believe in a spirit, so that comment is null.
There are so many different holy books, all of which contradict each other and themselves. The older ones explained things like lightning, thunder, and rain, which shows that people just insert God into areas that they don't understand. You don't know how the universe was created, therefore it was God. That logic is invalid.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 True, theist place God in explaining things they don't understand. On the same token, atheist would rather believe in unproven hypothesis of theoretical physicist about how the universe and life come into existence.
You cannot apply logic in non-scientific things like religious beliefs, which is why it is called faith. Yet, it is illogical to "have faith" in scientific hypothesis and uphold it as the truth.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade I would like for you to stop negating my questions and actually think about them. Question your faith. If God is benevolent, he won't mind if you think about it.
Here's another one for you - Omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence. If God is omniscient and knows the future, can he change the future with his omnipotence? If no, then he's not omnipotent. If yes, then he's not omniscient. Please think about it.
Why believe something there is no proof of?
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Omniscience is not incompatible with omnipotence.
How would you know that He had not made some changes as you can only live a singular path in time? If you are to be struck dead in an accident and He changed that from happening, you wouldn't know it. And you still wouldn't know that He knows His involvement in this case is necessary in shaping your intended future.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade If he knew what was going to happen all along, then he changed precisely nothing. There's a reason William Lane Craig says "as powerful as logically possible and knows all that is logically possible." Of course, that isn't what the bible says.
What are your answers to the other three arguments I've offered?
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 I'm not a theologian. I can't give you satisfying answer as I'm too seeking the explanations. I believe in God not because of any logic as it does not apply to it. I also believe our science will progress to explain many "mysteries of God", and my bet is it will even make me even more humble of how great God is.
We are merely a spec of dust in the existence of universe far from having brain power to comprehend God. But we surely can sense it if we are not too proud of ourselves.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Theologians can't answer these questions either. It's because God is an outdated concept that is no longer needed in our society and doesn't truly exist. You should realize that these are not "mysteries of God", but instead mysteries of the universe, and answers will eventually be found. At what point do we know enough of how we came to exist to say that God is an unneeded entity?
I hope you find the courage to overcome your indoctrination and become delighted by the truth.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 LOL... lets call faith as insurance of our afterlife. Since we only have short life to find such answers which may never come in our lifetime. We can't just disregard the wisdom of the past. Einstein says: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. That is clue enough for me.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade The wisdom of the past? You're reading story books and believing them to be true. People made these stories up to answer questions of the universe, which we know some of the answers to, but not all. However, we are a very young species and will find them in due time.
Pascals Wager requires you to live a lie. If you "believe" because you think it's the smarter choice, then you don't really believe. And which religion do you choose? There are thousands, all equally credible.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 There are story books and history books. I sure you can agree that we must learn the wisdom of history for the eternal truths it contains.
Another reason I believe in God because of who I am as a person that have soul and emotion. Science has not really tap into this, yet you know you have these and that what makes you alive, not just a bunch of body organs.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 I'm not making presumption that if we know enough how we came to exist then there is no God. On the contrary, it may even add proof that God exist.
Here are simple scientific questions: we know gravity, chemical elements, energy exist in our physical universe. But can you explain why should there is gravity? why the elements exist? why such properties to these elements? where the energy in the universe come from? where the energy to make the big bang come from?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You need to research physics a bit. The higgs boson particle is thought to give mass to all atoms in the universe. We of course, doesn't know if it truly exists, but ignorance can never be used as proof of God. Our ignorance is temporary.
The total energy level in the universe is exactly 0. There is negative and positive energy and they all balance out to be 0.
Dark energy is thought to have caused the big bang, but once again, even if it's wrong, that's not proof of anything.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Higgs boson particle is a theoretical things to fit in the the theoretical higgs mechanism. Its a bunch of theories built upon theories in quantum physics. These at this stage are merely speculations as you indicated. I don't see anywhere I implied our lacking in science as a proof of God. I'm only being open minded that our progression in science may possibly enhance our comprehension about God existence. Hence my personal believe that it MAY add proof that God exist.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You asked me questions of the universe that science cannot answer, calling them "simple scientific questions". That seemed to me to be an attempt at showing that since we don't know the answers, there must be a higher power.
Why are you stating God's existence as an axiom? It is far from it. It is the most far fetched idea that humans have ever proposed. Why believe anything when there is absolutely no evidence for it?
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 No, I'm only showing that our science is not there yet to conclude God does not exists.
Evidence of God's existence are abound, not necessarily can be proven through science or logical thinking. It takes spiritual sensor in you to sense it.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade So you're saying that God's existence cannot be logically shown, you just know that he exists because you know? It's more likely that you just believe because you were raised to believe. I don't know what more to say to you, you're standing in a completely irrational position and refuse to budge.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 There you go again using logic to call me irrational ;) I told you to use the spiritual sensor which is your heart to sense God. Let me ask you, do you ever feel love in your life? If you do, is a start to open your better understanding about God, because God is about the energy of love. Forget about finding scientific explanation about love, you wont find it there. It is something you must feel by putting logic aside. Check this out /watch?v=EQ6YJkVHf48 and /watch?v=CuFGzqULOg0
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You are, by definition, being irrational. I hope you're not saying you can actually feel with your heart. And love can be explained by Darwinian explanations. However, we don't know what chemical causes it. Once again, you're going to arguments from ignorance. Science can't fully explain love yet, therefore God exists. It doesn't work that way.
This is a clear demonstration of how religion slows science. You wouldn't even look for a scientific answer for love because of God.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Darwin is the most absurd reference that speculate how love works in cross gender and social/community needs. Love extend beyond relationship of same species. If you care to check out those lyrics in the links I posted and sink sometime to think with your heart and put aside logic, you'll probably get it.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You obviously don't understand natural selection. You are asking me to think illogically to understand God, which is completely absurd.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 We are not discussing about natural selection which I do understand as possible process in explaining the existence/evolution of life. If your darwinian reference to love is to augment the natural selection process, then there the absurdity lies because love has greater dimensions of meanings other than just sexual context.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Love would not be a result of sex. I agree, that's completely absurd. That is not the Darwinian explanation for love. You really should Google it because I would need much more space than I have here to explain it, and I don't really care to do so.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 I said sexual context (which serve the purpose for survival of the species), I did not meant sex as you put it. But lets throw this side track away from this discussion anyway. We both have close to 5 pages of comment already in this thread.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade I asked how much we need to know to show that there is no God. I did not say we know enough. I asked this hoping you would realize on your own that the idea of God was designed so that no matter how much we know, it can never be disproved.
So these are you claims?
1 - I have a spirit. Science cannot show it and science offers a better alternative, but I know i have a spirit because I know.
2 - I know God exists. I know this because I can feel it with my spirit.
Are you serious?
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade It probably won't.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@cycletrade Asking unanswered questions of science and presenting it as proof of God is called an argument from ignorance.
"I can think of two answers, X and Y. X is wrong, therefore Y is correct." The error lies in one's ability, or lack thereof, to think of all the possibilities.
Or, "I can only think of one answer, X. Therefore, X is correct." The same logical fallacy applies.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@bryanhaw1 Just to make things clear, I have nothing against science. I actually embrace science and look up to future findings of proven facts (not unproven theories) that may support my belief in God.
To think of all possibilities also means to admit that we are not there yet to say any conclusion that God does not exist.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade I wasn't asserting that if we know how we came to exist, then there is no God. I was saying that if we know how we came to exist, then we have no reason to believe in a God, and therefore need a greater amount of evidence to believe he exists.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade Regardless, just because we don't know the answer to something, you shouldn't insert God as an answer, especially when there is no evidence of a God existing. It only slows down our search for answers.
And I would like to point out that atheists are without faith, by definition.
bryanhaw1 2 months ago
@cycletrade The Universe may have always existed. There was a singularity before the "big bang, which was basically all the matter in the Universe, condensed into something no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. It may be that there was a Universe before this one, which had "crunched" inward, to form the singularity. We have more evidence of this idea than we do of yours.
lazerbeam134 3 months ago
@lazerbeam134, There is really no evidence other than ideas of theoretical physics. But, your faith in it is just as strong as the theist faith in God.. LOL...
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Do you understand how one arrives at an idea in theoretical physics? If you did, you might understand that it is not a question of faith, but of reason.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 You are mixing the context. Currently, science can only speculate/theorize based on man made formulas, reasoning, observations of limited sensing equipment. These hypothesis are far from being the proven truth. Yet, atheist clinging to it as if having "faith" that it is the ultimate truth, and readily omit non scientific possibility like existence of God.
Are we really that grand to be so proud to say we've found the truth of the universe?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade You're missing the context, actually. There is no faith at all, and there is no claim that this is absolute truth. Currently, the CERN Large Hadron Collider has discovered what may be the Higgs Boson. What I said is that scientific theory holds a greater weight of evidence than religious doctrine. Because of the way we arrive at scientific theories requires extensive work, rather than declaring it is so because wish it to be so. It isn't speculation, it is actual work.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 You fail to see the big picture. One famous passage in Ecclesiastes says "there is nothing new under the sun". What scientist have done are merely rediscovering things that has been put in existence, and they haven't uncover everything yet. If big bang is even can be proven true, the question is still why must it happened?Thus the believe in the ultimate creator called God.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade No, not really. You are essentially using the "first mover" argument, which has a huge flaw. The premise, basically. The notion is that everything stems from else, everything has a cause or reason. You decide this is God, and then say he is exempt from living up to premise himself, because he is an "unmoved mover". So the problem is God's relationship to existence. If what exists had to have been created, and God exists, then God was created. Who made God?
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 And if God did not have to be created, or wasn't created, then God can't possibly exist as part of existence. Then he exists outside of existence. See how that is an issue? Also, of course something has to exist for science to give us information about it. That is the point of science, to explain natural phenomenon. Sometimes the explanations show that the Bible is wrong. Because the people who wrote it didn't have the knowledge.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 I think it is good to want to progress beyond primitive knowledge. If the Bible was the eternal word of god, revealed to man, then our science would confirm information in the Bible regarding the Universe and nature. But that hasn't been the case. The Bible teaches young earth creationism, the geocentric model, and a very absurd theory of human reproduction. Also, it was said that humans lived to be centuries old. Something there is no evidence of.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 The universe, nature can't spontaneously exists.The cause it exist can't be nature because nature can't cause itself. Your notion gets invalid, because it goes into infinity, and that'll be a scientific nightmare.
So what's left must be a supernatural being beyond the realm of physical matter, time, and space. Hence the logic about cause and effect can't apply to God.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade Again, you reiterate the first mover argument. Why can't nature cause itself? What have we seen that suggests that nature isn't self sustaining? I think it is pretty damn clear from observation that it is. My notion isn't invalid; yours is. That is my point. God needs a creator, if all that exists needs a creator. How do you know anything exists outside of matter, time and space? You are saying God exists outside of existence. Might as well say he doesn't exist.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Forget about God for a while. So based on your observation you propose that the universe simply exists and has been existed INFINITELY with all the laws of nature and characteristics/properties?
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade That is one way to look at it. But rather, I would say the Universe we know seems to have existed for about 13 billion years so far, and may continue for much longer. Infinity is an interesting concept. We might conclude that the Universe is infinite, because we have no practical way to measure it to be finite. So it infinite in a practical sense. I am proposing that the Universe can exist independent of external forces. Because we have no knowledge of external forces.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Basically, it is a matter of what is the simplest answer we can come up with based on what we observe to be true. There is nothing that suggests that there needs to be an external force to sustain the existence of the universe. And honestly, as a matter of definition, can an external even exist? The Universe is defined as the sum total of existence. Hence, that which is outside the Universe is outside of existence. What is outside the realm of existence must not exist
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@lazerbeam134 Those are speculations, estimates, based on current scientific instrument/probes. We may get better estimation in the future. Perhaps, one day we'll know not only HOW the universe exists but also WHY the universe exists. But until then, what science can describe today is no better than Johnny fairies in the closet.
BTW, I didn't say a supernatural being outside of existence. I meant an extraordinary being not affected by the existence as we know it bind by matter, time, & space.
cycletrade 2 months ago
@cycletrade We may get a better estimation in the future, but that doesn't mean it is wrong now. You seem to not get that. It isn't wrong until it is wrong. You assume why matters. That is the difference here. Why has no relevance, it is the realm of philosophy. And philosophy is an area, that while interesting, lacks a certain surgical precision to dictate the nature of reality. Science is better than fairies. By the sheer fact that it is required to test itself. You don't get that?
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@cycletrade Matter time and space sounds about appropriate to define as the set of "existence". Talking about anything else is as meaningful as masturbation. It felt good maybe, but what did it accomplish? And I have been mulling this over today actually. The question of WHY. Why is an interesting word. Your beliefs rely entirely on the supposition that why matters. But can you ever answer why? Not that I can see. So you can arbitrarily declare the reason why as you see fit.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
@cycletrade Sorry to post so many responses at once, character limits are sucky. So, what I am saying is that How concerns me as a matter of practicality. Why is anyone's guess. Have you any familiarity with Pascal's Wager? There was a video made by a YouTuber, TheraminTrees, where he addressed it. In it, he establishes that the wager is flawed in the fact that once must deal with the infinite competing whys. How is much more simple. You can observe how things happen.
lazerbeam134 2 months ago
Haters be trollin
oOoSandwich247oOo 3 months ago
@oOoSandwich247oOo amen!
rorstar83 3 months ago
@rorstar83 ugh dude atheists have a lack of belief there isnt any prove that god doesnt exist but theres no prove that he does either and until you can present some prove god fits in the catigory of santa, bigfoot, the lockness, monster, pixies, unicorns, and so on so forth get your facts straight the burden of prove is on the claimer. if i told you that bigfoot was real i would have to prove it you wouldnt have to prove he doesnt now would you. same thing just replace the world bigfoot with god
Xlivesforever 3 months ago
why the hell is this video three and a half minutes long? even the background music finishes at the three minute mark...
SnarfSnarfLiono 3 months ago
@SnarfSnarfLiono It was addressed to theists to ask atheists the question.
robvlob 3 months ago
A lack of belief does not require religion. A lack of belief does not need a proof. We are born atheist, the burden of proof is on the theist.
Harabeck 3 months ago 4
@rorstar83 Badly formed questions can't be answered.
How much does 7:00 PM weigh? How do you keep colorless green ideas from sleeping furiously?
onlylettersand0to9 3 months ago 11
This is just awful. Are you a stamp collector or a non stamp collector?
Nebzz 3 months ago
Why is it so hard for religious people to understand that I don't need any proof to not believe in something? All I need is a lack of convincing evidence for it.
I don't know there is no god, but based on the evidence (witch is different than proof) I think it is 99,5% plausible.
That means I will live my life under the assumption there is no god, and that we have only this life and are ourself responsible to make the most out of it.
KenZilla72 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
krakendahed 4 months ago
It is unnecessary to use religion to form a lack of belief in "god". Are you forgetting deism (which is more a perspective on what "god" is, w/o resorting to religious practices)? All one needs in order to not believe a claim about "god" is what the claimant says about "god"'s qualities/behaviors, regardless of religion.
Voidsworn 4 months ago