@FallofDarkness55 I really find it amusing how Christians use "you're going to hell" as an excuse to be mean to non-believers. As if you lack any and all forms of communication, you resort to barking at your enemies in a futile attempt to shut them up. This is an invariable sign of intolerance, a narrow mindset, and a general lack of education. There is no solution for you, but for your children I would suggest a strong schooling and a freedom from religious indoctrination. Cheers.
@FallofDarkness55 if there is a god, then he must be evil if the majority of humans are going to hell!!! FOR ETERNITY!!!!!! pretty harsh punishment considering rational thought leads you to be a non believer!! "the prancster god, burying dinosaur fossiles to trick us into being non believers" lol, one for you to think about, not that you will even think about it
@johnnytheprick See, I like your argument because it makes sense to a logical and rational mind. This is why I'm an Atheist. It amazes me how one can disconnect themselves from information like this, ignorant to the fact that none of the scientific proof from today's astrology points towards a deity that created the universe.
Also susskind also states alot of times how Humans are intelligent and most other creatures are not. Which is not true because they are constantly finding animals are smarter then we thought. The just found out that rats feel empathy. Also even if they weren't intelligent they have incredible intelligence inside of them. I'm not religious in any sense but I find it incredible people are willing too just ignore all of this order infront of their face.
@JG129 It certainly is not all random but that doesn't lend towards any religious idea (not that I'm accusing you of such things), life itself is a process. Processes are simply intelligible patterns of occurrence. The universe clearly follows some physical laws but that doesn't stop it all being asinine, certainly not random however.
I'm sorry but I'm not believing that anything was random. I think its just patterns that we do not understand. But our egos cannot stand when we can't explain something.
atheism is a religion too. I side with atheism on the grounds that the truth is always the emptier more futile of two possibilities, though it'd be nice if there were some sort of benevolent higher intelligence floating around looking out for us. The truth is we live in an accidental, morally blank mostly vacuum and when this universe dies, the omniverse will grow another in its place in the manner of a quantum computational tumour. It may be one where life happens. I happen to think not.
Atheism is not a religion. It has no social rituals, it has no affirmed dogma and it certainly does not have a devotional practise. You could potentially say it was a belief system. But it isn't even that. As that is normally naturalism. An Atheist, simply is a person without theism.
@NorseDisbeliever You just replied *exactly* as an atheist would. You guys have your own unique manner of communication- instantly recognisable. Though I suppose your minimal definition is pretty hard to argue with as the clue is in the word itself lol And there are a number of points on which I could respond but there's no point, as atheists tend to consider themselves unimpeachable on their ontologies. Plus Seinfeld is on and I haven't finished my potato-cheesy-assorted vegetables carb fest.
I never said I was unimpeachable. I merely pointed out that atheists hold not a belief because they reject a theist one. They hold it on other merits. Namely Naturalism, or rather that the epistemological claims are knowable and are affirmed through testing and retesting our own assertions. There are room for uncertainty in that, maybe to the extent that it's unknowledgeable. But, that does not give anyone license to speculate or postulate on that uncertainty.
@edgespear101 Ok what you have to remember is. Scientist's are educated and know a lot more than the average people on the street. Keeping that in mind means your argument is flawed. Having 95% of Scientist's being Atheist is it's own argument against religion. And a good one. Atheist's being the minority globally is inevitable considering it has only just turned up in the last 100 to 150 years. And on top of that, it being very fast growing to this day.
@1123joey " Scientist's are educated and know a lot more than the average people on the street. Keeping that in mind means your argument is flawed" Yes and there are scientists who do believe in God. There are 5% intelligent (way more intelligent than you) who are scientists who do believe in God. (I'm saying this as I have taken your weak statistic). "Atheism" is not a religion, it does not "start", people become Atheists, they don't convert, just like in Muhammads time when Abu Lahab
@edgespear101 Let me just make something clear. Everyone on this planet is born an Atheist. Does a baby or a very young child believe in a deity? Of course not, they have no idea what one is. You're born Atheist, but taught religion. Deal with it. The fact that 5% of scientist's believe in a God has nothing to do with the fact that 95% of scientist's don't believe. Because there isn't any evidence for God, the 95% that don't believe cancel that 5% out. Did I say Atheism is a religion?
@1123joey No scientists don't cancel other scientists out, lol this isn't maths. You said Atheism turned up 100 to 150 years ago and now you say every child born is Atheist? Really? So if I go to a new born baby and say do you believe in God, will they say, "I have a disbelief in God", okay if you say so! Babies don't know anything!
so tell me, when will your god make an appearance? have you spoken to "him" lately? like most scientific endeavours, what evidence do you have? visual? aural? oral? tactile? or is it a case of "everything i see before me"?
if you have a picture of "him" or voice recording or email..........id be more than convinced that there is a "god". failing that, you should be locked up for your own good.
@johnnytheprick It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. I have given the links and that is all I can do, the rest is upto you. Take care, good bye.
Typical Christian: I get to force my belief into the classroom to be taught right along science, I get to put my religious symbol (only christians, no other religions) on public lands, i get to block a proposition that denies gays basic human rights, I get to proselytize door to door. Yet it's the atheists who are self-centered and impose their beliefs on others.
@GrowMasterGeneral Typical Atheist. Believes they have all the answers; don't live in reality; ave perceived threats they are forced to do something that they are not. Then try to use delusional logic to make their cases. You/yours try every day to force others to believe as you do. Those are the facts. Still not the point. The belief in God is what keeps Christians from doing the very atrocities that you try and proclaim is being done. Time for a reality check.
@1timby "Time for a reality check."... "don't live in reality"... "Again time to wake up." Do these things make you feel better when you say them? Do you feel like you're the better person? It's just funny to me.
ve hopes that you'll come back to reality and get to the real issues. you want to misdirect the worlds woes on Christians. The last time I checked. no one was harmed in any way by looking at a cross, religious memorial, etc. Unlike what goes on in the world today. Yet you perceive such harm from supposedly having to look at a cross outside your window. I truly feel sorry for you. The world & Christianity has really mistreated you. Time to grow up.
@1timby The point is, you have no proof of God. And you're foolish for determining something to be absolute fact without any evidence to support it. Your personal connection with God is not proof. I met with someone who had a personal connection with Elvis' ghost, I don't hardly consider that proof of ghosts. And you shouldn't either. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim (you). And it's a shame that you think America should be infected with your fairytale religion.
@GrowMasterGeneral I don't need to prove to me that God exists. You're the one telling me that I can't believe as I want. It's OK for you to force others to believe as you do using same logic that Atheists are useing they are forced to look at crosses & pray because they would feel ostracized if they didn't. Hmm seem it's OK for you but not others. Again "DON'T BELIEVE". America was Christian before you were even a gleam in your great great grand parents eye.
Let me get this straight, I'm self centered because I don't want your religion to be imposed on anyone who doesn't want it. I don't think you know the meaning of "self-centered."
@GrowMasterGeneral No your self centered because you feel it's your right to determine what other should feel and do. The basic definition of self centered. concerned solely or chiefly with one's own interests, welfare, etc.; "engrossed in self"; selfish; "egotistical". All the dictionary needs is your picture.
@GrowMasterGeneral By your comments to me. Christians are forcing you to do X. That's your words not mine. I have to see a cross when i look out my window. poor baby. I have to see things everyday i don't want to see. Yet I'm not here bemoaning that I was forced to do anything.
@1timby Did you forget about intelligent design trying to be taught as a legitimate science, did you forget about gays being treated as second class citizens? Yeah, I'm the self centered one who's trying to impose their beliefs.
@GrowMasterGeneral Did you forget that Darwinism hasn't been proven and was refuted by many of his time as well as Darwin himself. What do gays have to do with this. Can you say red herring. Smoke and mirrors. Now Christians are hunting down Gays and killing them in the streets. Good one. Forcing them to be not gay. Another good one. Another perceived atrocity by you and others. Lets not forget that we are against stealing, murder, etc. Don't want to forget those atrocities.
@1timby "What do gays have to do with this. Can you say red herring.".. Gays can't get married because christian america says the bible says it's wrong. That's not imposing your belief on others?
Ok lets suppose that there was no intelligent design on creation of universe, creationist fail. But athiest are double crossed in the sense that if universe was created by itself than who created the first living thing? Where did that first cell come from????? If there is than why don't we see more new cells being evoled and new species bringing itself from nothing. Science can't prove anything, how can it defy the truth?
@ayatullah100b Good question - the conditions on Earth have changed a lot since the first cell came about, so it could be that conditions on Earth today cannot create new life from scratch. It's likely that if a cell formed from scratch, it would be primitive, and unevolved, and killed by bacteria so quickly we would never find out it existed as it would never have any descendants. The process of life from scratch is called abiogenesis, and there are many theories suggesting how life can begin.
Theoretical physicist Hmm no facts. The universe designed itself and life? What a crock. There has never been any proof, other than theories, that the universe just happened. The laws of Physics has holes big enough to drive a truck through yet they are taken as fact. Newtonian physics has been proven wrong. Even Einstein doubted certain aspects of his research. Yet we have another gentleman spouting his opinions. So where did matter come from to form the universe? What about the start of life?
@1timby I would say quantum mechanics (which we have a lot of evidence for) explains how the universe could have started, and it explains definitively how matter can come from nothing. Newtonian physics isn't a problem any more - Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics put the nail in the coffin for those ways of thinking 100 years ago. While we don't know how the universe began, we have some good theories of how the universe may have created itself. I will explain some if you want me to.
@cdplayerx50 So now theories are now facts? Matter can't come from nothing. It has to come from something. Energy is something. If the start of the universe is because of some energy then where did the energy come from? So many unanswered questions and the theory is considered fact. Even Einsteins THEORIES are unproven. Yes they work in some models. That's not real world. Newtonian physics is correct either as it breaks down on the subatomic level. So again no facts just theories.
@1timby Sorry if I came across as if I was saying theories were facts, I didn't mean that with what I said. We recently discovered (in the last 10 years) that the universe is a flat universe, one which stretches on forever, and contains a total of 0 energy. Yep, that's right, 0 energy. This works because we have negative energy as well as positive energy, and the negative energy (potential energy) cancels out the positive energy. Also, we find random virtual particles popping in and out of
@cdplayerx50 I've spent my entire career in Technical realm. I look at all the posed theories as well as ones once considered laws(now found to be false or at least not total true). Are U talking of dark matter? If so another theory. Science has spent centuries trying to reverse engineer the universe. The have a very limited tool and knowledge set. So I would take what science says with a grain of salt. Odds are against the universe being created out of nothing and from nothing.
@cdplayerx50 Where there is negative energy or positive energy it had to come from somewhere. Besides - or + energy is only relative to something. So we're back to where this energy comes from. Unknown dimensions? Could be.
@1timby if the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (and some other interpretations too) is correct, then causality is false, so as it is believed to be likely now there is 0 energy in total for the universe then it could be that it quantum fluctuated into existence. With regards to energy being relative, as I understand it potential energy is negative, and kinetic energy is positive, so in a singularity (if the big bang is true), then maybe they could cancel each other out?
@cdplayerx50 If it's correct? If Higgs is correct? If Einstein is correct? You're talking apples and oranges. -1 + 1 =0. Matter is different. I should know I've been dealing with science and equations for over 30 years. Just because a molecule has a negative charge doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same for matter. Just because there is one molecule of matter and another of anti-matter doesn't mean you have no matter. You have 2 molecules of matter. Still doesn't answer the question.
@cdplayerx50 If I take a molecule of matter and one of antimatter and put them together I have a big explosion. This changes the states of the matter to other matter. However, you had to have matter to begin with. Only a creator could have created matter. It can't just happen out of nothing. Even science can agree on that.
@1timby If you add one electron and positron you get two photons, thus 'destroying' matter as photons aren't matter. This is true of any antimatter explosion. We see that the opposite also happens (there is experimental evidence for this) that two photons will randomly change into an electron-positron pair for a very brief period of time. MRI scanners rely on the principle that virtual photons can appear from nothing. Basically, science has shown that matter very regularly appears from nothing.
@cdplayerx50 Appears from nothing(an observation). Man didn't see germs so they blames other things for sickness. Man observed that the earth was the center of the universe. Man really can't see outside our solar system so they make theories about the varied nebula, stars, and planets. They observe light that has traveled for millennium; make a guess as to what's out there. A few examples of false assumptions made by observations.
@1timby Virtual particles were actually predicted before they were observed - and that's why quantum mechanics and relativity are such good models for the universe: they make accurate predictions. I disagree that "at best its just a guess"; we have extremely good evidence for many theories. To say that no theory is proven is a true statement - but you can apply it to anything. There is a chance that we are currently inside the Matrix - its just so unlikely to be true that we don't believe this.
@cdplayerx50 Predicted. So I can say that in the future there will be snow. My prediction would be 100% true. What I didn't say was where/when/how much. So I got 1 out of 4. I wouldn't want to base anything on that. Quantum mechanics are just theories perceived to be true because a small group got together and said so. While it may seem to be true, it has a long way to go before being validated to be factual. It's just a guess until proven factual. May be a good guess.
@1timby What I meant was that we predicted something using a model, then tested this prediction, and the prediction was correct. You don't know when it will snow to a good degree of accuracy because amazingly we understand quantum mechanics better than the weather. Several decades ago, using quantum mechanics, the maximum possible mass of any white dwarf was calculated. We have now discovered 1000s of white dwarfs, and not a single one exceeds this mass, even though many are close to the mass.
@cdplayerx50 I read an article concerning observations. A scientist took some photos to his class in astrophysics. He asked the class what they thought of the pics & asked them to tell him the subject matter of the pics. Most of the class agreed they were of a planet. The scientist revealed that they were close ups of his knee. So much for observations. One can convince others that they see things that aren't really there. Can you say mirages.
@1timby Firstly, this also happens in religion, but with even more bias (e.g. images of Jesus in toast). Secondly, yes I agree this does happen in science where observations can be falsely attributed. But had the students known more about astronomy (or skin biology) they would have instantly recognised it was not a planet. Also, theories are not made in a 30 minute session (usually it takes many years), and lots of specific observations under different circumstances are taken to eliminate bias.
@cdplayerx50 I'm not saying that it doesn't. What I'm saying is that science sometime wants a result and sees it. That is what happened with the students. They assumed that the teacher had taken pics of a planet. So they made the linkage to the result they thought was the most likely. I'm not saying that all scientist are faking results. I'm saying that man may never find the real info for creation of the universe/life. That doesn't mean that God isn't the creator.
@1timby I know what you mean about how people will see results when there are none - however, I think there are good mechanisms in place to stop these bad ideas from becoming commonplace, like peer review of papers. Of course, if a theory is shown to be wrong then it is canned immediately, which is a pretty good defense I guess, and most data is empirical anyway, so I guess it won't be open to much interpretation. I also agree with you that we may never find out how the universe began.
@1timby But surely there is no need to invoke a deity in the creation of the universe? Isn't it better to just say that nobody knows? After all, there are an infinite number of possibilities for what could be out there - doesn't that make the probability of a highly specific being having created the universe infintesimely small?
@cdplayerx50 For me it's very important. It's a crucial part of my faith. However, you may believe as you wish. The marvels of the universe; it's perfect order screams out it had a creator.
@1timby I guess that's fair enough if that's your opinion. As for my background - I used to be a very strong roman catholic. I started questioning my beliefs about 5 years ago, as I started realising just how insignificant man is compared to the infinite universe, and how texts like the Bible dramatise and over-exaggerate man's place in the universe to the point of arrogance. I also found that there is so much metaphor in the Bible (Adam and Eve for instance) that you can't tell what is literal.
@cdplayerx50 I'm sorry that you came to that point in your life. I find that when I read and study I find out how insignificant I am. Until I read the part about what God did for me. There are times I can't visualize or truly understand a crucifixion.
I look at it this way, if God is really God and he created all things how is what God did not to be taken literally? The bible doesn't explain how God did these miracles just that he did. No one back then or today could understand.
@1timby Thanks for the thought but don't worry - being an atheist is completely fine - not depressing or meaningless like many Christians think - I used to think that to an extent myself. After I stopped believing in God, there was a year of my life when I felt confused and lost. I thought there being no absolute morality meant there was no meaning to life or anything. I thought that as there was no way to repent for our wrongdoings meant that no one was a 'good person'
@1timby But I think I've realised why I was thinking about the world from the wrong perspective. Christianity is of course much more than just a belief in God - its an entire philosophy on life. All the morals and beliefs of Christianity are completely fine (I think personally), but they come from the assumption that there is a God - such as believing that mankind is inherently sinful, and that absolute morality can only be created by a deity.
@1timby These philosophies and others form the backbone of the beliefs of many (they did with me) so I never questioned them - they seem like they are not mutually exclusive to religion. As an analogy - its like agreeing with Newtonian physics, and then never questioning it - until you find out about relativity. Then one day, I was asking myself whether life really has a purpose or not - then it hit me: Our purpose is whatever we want it to be.
@1timby It was then that I realised that it was my perspective that was wrong - that I was looking at reality the way a pessimist sees a half full cup. That people are inherently good not evil as people always try to help others - that morality is completely subjective, but in an absolute way (see Sam Harris's videos) and that a good purpose for life is to fulfill your own purpose, yet to not interfere with the purposes of others. These are my personal philosophies.
@1timby I think when many Christians try to picture being an atheist they find it unbearable to think of a world without a God. But this is because of the other principles they rely on, which are based off the idea that God exists and that the Bible is true. But to ACTUALLY imagine what is like to be an atheist, you merely need to change your perspective on life. Other atheists I have met seem to have gone through the same period of confusion.
@1timby Sorry for the essay :) By the way, not trying to convert you or anything - just explain why we atheists are just as happy as any Christians or people of any religion. To answer your question - the Bible contains all the same tropes as a story written by man - there are many literary techniques used in it to create drama. When these devices are used to make docu-dramas, facts go out of the window . From this it seems extremely likely that the Bible was at least never meant to be literal.
@cdplayerx50 Con't - If you say that you built a home, I can't truly fathom everything it took to do it. I can see the craftsmanship and the beauty. If I were to go back in time a few hundred years and hand a person a laptop or a smart phone they wouldn't have a point of reference to understand. You could try to explain but they couldn't grasp all the concepts. This of course is an oversimplification of what God has done.
@1timby When I feel insignificant because of the vastness of the universe - I think about how we are a part of the universe - how the atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the furnaces of star, and how as maybe the only intelligent part of the universe, we are the consciousness of the universe - the only way for the universe to perceive itself. However, I think we perceive the universe as incredible because we spend our entire lives inside it - so maybe we are all biased in a way.
@cdplayerx50 Your premise that we are all evil is where I think you went astray. We're all sinful by nature. That's why God sent Christ. Not to condemn but to save. Many Christians as well as unbelievers think you have to be perfect. That would mean that works were the most important thing. It's not by works that we enter the grace of God. It's a free gift given in love. I had a hard time for years with the sin thing. Once I understood that God really wanted me. Prob solved.
@1timby I must explain: I didn't stop being a Christian because I felt emotionally distraught , sinful or because I 'hated' God (I never did or do). This is a common mistake which Christians seem to make when speaking to atheists. The idea that everyone secretly believes in God but denies it is false. Replace the word 'God' with the word 'Santa' in your comments, and then read it to yourself. That is the same way I and any atheist views the idea of a God. (I'm not trying to be offensive btw)
@cdplayerx50 Then I'm confused. First, I thought that an Atheist was a person who didn't believe in any Deity? You state you don't hate God. So you let yourself be deceived into believing that there isn't a creator. How can someone who sees the universe decide that a nonentity (the universe, created itself. There was nothing now there's a universe? This cries out that there is a creator. Next why would a creator go to all the trouble and just go away?
@1timby I don't believe there is or ever was a deity (i.e. God) - I was over the character limit, so I said 'God' instead of 'a deity' to reduce the character count :) . I don't hate God in the same way I don't hate Santa Claus - you can't hate a fictional character. Atheists are anyone who believes deities and anything supernatural are fictional. Also, cause and effect is not a physical law, its an unproven assumption - it is easily possible (even likely) that the universe sprang from nothing.
@1timby The reason I stopped believing in God was because I realised how unlikely it is that there is a God. Wanting there to be a deity wouldn't change whether there was a deity or not, and every time I prayed I would ask for God to show me or the world a physical sign that he was real. A god could easily create a physical sign of his/her existence. Nothing happened. From research, It seems there is no evidence that a god exists - the base position is to assume nothing, and that no God exists.
@cdplayerx50 How many signs did Christ give and still the religious leaders denied them? How many times did Christ heal the sic, raise the dead, and even the disciples questioned him? Man's faculties have a difficult time with things that happen out of what they feel is the natural realm. You say without any qualms there is no evidence God exists. Yet you see it every day. Science tries to explain it away but is unable. They fill the gapes with postulates to make the science work.
@1timby Firstly, I don't think the Bible is a reliable source of evidence, considering the number of versions available, the number of times it has been translated, the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the 'God of the gaps' argument has been argued to death over the course of history. First, people would argue that science can't explain diseases because a god is causing them. Then that science can't explain electricity because a god is causing it.
@cdplayerx50 Well there are variad translations. That doesn't bother me. The bible was written in several languages. There is some problems with literalness. EX: I say nice shirt. Without the body language and intonation the reader wouldn't know what I was trying to convey. Also, various books were written to a different audience. This leads to folks saying the bible has contradictions that aren't really contradiction.
@cdplayerx50 Cont- extraordinary evidence. 400 folks witness the resurrection of Christ. 5000 were fed, Water to wine was witnessed. Other things can be traced back to accounts from historians or government leaders of the time. Not sure of your point concerning God of gaps.
@1timby If you can provide any historical sources of evidence for these events I would be glad to look at them (not bible quotes). Speakers of Hebrew who can read the original bible say that the original is vastly different from the new versions and that much fewer of the logical contradictions are in it anyway. With regard to a 'God of the gaps' argument, it is an argument where someone effectively says how science can't explain everything, so God must have created those 'unexplainable' events.
@cdplayerx50 Science can't explain the gaps( fact). So I don't see how that is a problem for anyone. There has been many attempts by science to try and prove how life started or how the universe came into being. However, science is unable to provide the crucial elements in their theories. If I did that I would be told that I was nuts. Yet everyone believes science even though they have these crucial gaps. How did matter come from nothing? How did life evolve from nothing?
@1timby my point is that the argument would be valid if science was at a complete standstill with a problem that was nigh on impossible to solve - but it isn't. Saying that science has gaps therefore God, is like saying that you'll never finish constructing a building because the building isn't already finished. You're assuming that the gaps science sometimes leaves will NEVER be explained, when history has shown that they often will be explained by science after a short while.
@cdplayerx50 Science has big gaps. Consider the vast amount of knowelde in the universe. Even with mans vast leaps in technology and science that have barley scratched the surface. It's very easy to see that science has a long way to go just with the human genome. Let along a cure for cancer, how to travel to the next star, what holds matter together, etc. As I stated God already knows this. He's the one that did it.
@cdplayerx50 cont - as for science's explanation in a short while, it took centuries for the flat earth theory to go away, Newtonian Physics was just now thought to be faulty. Einsteins theories are now being explored. Even with all our great leaps in tech, we still have a limited tool set and knowledge set. I don't look for unequivocal proof of God's demise anytime in man's history.
@1timby Science does have gaps, but the job of science is to fill in those gaps. Scientific advances tend to creep up without warning, so for all we know a cure for cancer is just around the corner. Also we already know that the Strong force holds matter together don't we? People used to say 'science can't explain electricity - so science can't explain everything, only a deity'. Of course, science can now explain electricity, and there is no reason why science can't explain everything
@cdplayerx50 The theory is that strong force holds matter together. That's a made up term for something that science doesn't understand. Just a little while ago that was a problem when I want to use God to fill those gaps. But it's OK for a scientist to fill the gaps with a made up unsubstantiated term. I prefer the dark matter name. However, it's still a hypothesis until proven.
@cdplayerx50 cont - Funny you should say science understands electricity. There are two theories of how electricity flows. One is hole flow and one is electron flow. So which is th real answer? Depends on who you ask. So they don't really know things they stipulate that as far as they know it's this way. To use that logic I can explain anything. All I have to do is make up something that seems plausible whether right or wrong and pass it off as fact.
@1timby There is another point of view many take on theories in science. Newton wasn't necessarily 'wrong': his theories just didn't describe the full story. You can still say that E=0.5mv^2 so long as you assume that the mass remains constant and the theory holds true. Relativity is merely a theory that adds to Newton's theories and makes them more precise, by taking into account more factors. Even if the OPERA result is true there are theories about them which keep Relativity intact.
@cdplayerx50 Assume full story all these are really the truth that they really didn't know but that's OK since they don't really have to be. Just name it Strong Gravity, Dark Matter and let it go. God didn't assume anything. He created the universes. Because science can't figure out how doesn't make it false. When I do that I'm told that I need proof. Yet science flounders around and makes formulas to prove something that can't be really proven.
@cdplayerx50 Cont - I really like to theorizes/fantasize about how things happened.However, just like science no matter how many fancy names I add there are these big huge gaps that can't be explained away by theories or formulas. Creation of matter from nothing, how the universe who is not sentient made itself, life just happened.
@1timby I agree that science will always have its flaws, and there are many gaps in it at the moment. But while you criticize science for 'making up' ideas like the strong force, and dark matter, you seem to praise the biggest made fancy name of them all. You can't just say that every theory science has come up with so far to explain the beginning of the universe is probably wrong, yet then go on to say that your theory about an invisible, telepathic man in the sky is DEFINITELY correct.
@cdplayerx50 The big bang..... God Said Let there be light. Sounds a lot like the big bang and creation of the universe. God doesn't tell us how he created the Heavens, earth, or life. Just that he did. Who would understand the mechanics of such a feat? Not science of today. Science utilizes a very limited tool set & knowledge for their theories. The science of tomorrow will make the science of today look like the science of 100 years ago.
@1timby cont. I don't mean to sound harsh but that's what it sounds like your saying to me. I'm not saying that science's theories are right, just that I think your God Theory is also wrong. Also, try searching 'god of the gaps' on google, and look through the search results to see why this argument is false - I get the feeling i'm not very good at explaining it :L . A true gap which may be evidence for a god would be one which actually defies the physical laws, rather than an unexplained event.
@cdplayerx50 You're very welcome to have your opinion. As I have stated, and as you know, there are many that will not believe. It's not my purview to make you or anyone believe anything they don't want. It's up to you to decide. Thanks for listening to my side. I wish you well. Also, I hope this doesn't offend, God bless.
@1timby What makes you think God exists? What makes you think it's your God? Why not Vishnu, Shiva, Apollo, Thor? There are any number of things we can believe in, but choose not to because there's absolutely no evidence or reason to. The truth is, when you look at the universe and life, there's no evidence of a designer. Religion/God is the first attempt to explain why we're here, why we die, diseases, where we go when we die. People need to be reassured that someone is looking out for them.
@GrowMasterGeneral Why do you care. You don't believe in God or any deity. So what I believe is irrelevant. There's no evidence that string theory is correct just a supposition by a community that is known to have false facts. Otherwise there would be no need to look further for how the universe was created. You take something and try to reverse engineer it making observations that may or may not be correct. Then offer them as fact. Why no the spaghetti monster theory?
@GrowMasterGeneral Cont - just because you haven't found the proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science has missed tons of things yet you and the nonbelievers feel that's good enough. You can believe man's futile attempts at making sense out of the universe as factual yet miss the proverbial trees in the forest. There is as much evidence of intelligent design as there is that the universe just happened to create it self. Can't see the forest for the trees.
@1timby "you haven't found the proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.".... It doesn't mean it does exist either, and you SHOULDN'T believe in it until the evidence proves it. That is how science works. That is why science has "missed tons of things." Science does not declare something to be fact before there is any proof for it's existence. Once it finds evidence, only then can theories be put up to the scientific method. If you still believe in intelligent design look up kitzmiller vs dover.
@GrowMasterGeneral An why should I believe on the science flavor of the day. It has been proven wrong time & time again. So we're to take the word of science. The word that states "Well we don't know where matter came from but we have some theories". Hmm. What about life from nothing? Again science states ":Well we're not sure". So if I look at the odds against the universe creating itself as opposed to the intelligent design. Seems like a slam dunk to me.
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - science hasn't found evidence/facts. Just theories. A law suit. I can prove anything in court if I have enough money. Justice went out of the judicial system years ago.Besides it was thrown out not because of merit but because of the supposed conflict with the Constitution. This was a decision which could be protested at a later date. So that argument doesn't hold water. You haven't a leg to stand on. No proof God doesn't exist. ACLU hasn't a clue.
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - science hasn't found evidence/facts. Just theories. A law suit. I can prove anything in court if I have enough money. Justice went out of the judicial system years ago.Besides it was thrown out not because of merit but because of the supposed conflict with the Constitution. This was a decision which could be protested at a later date. So that argument doesn't hold water. You haven't a leg to stand on. No proof God doesn't exist. ACLU hasn't a clue.
@1timby There is no evidence of intelligent design. You see evidence because you wanna see evidence. It's like looking at a cloud in the sky and trying to make out the image you wanna see. You see the face of God, I just see a cloud, someone else may see a bunny. I don't believe spacetime and energy came from nothing. They are eternal. If you can believe your God is eternal, then you can believe spacetime/energy is eternal. Occam's razor will tell you God is not the likely answer.
@GrowMasterGeneral You don't see evidence because you don't want to. You're prejudice because of your belief when even science states they don't know if there is a God. So you're not being honest. I can say the same with the observations from science. The case of the missing link in the 90's. Dark Matter, strong gravity, etc. Occam's razor will tell you God is the likely answer. Odds are for God not the universe creating itself. Do the math.
@1timby "You don't see evidence because you don't want to. "... I don't see evidence because there is none. Show me the evidence then. You don't have evidence. Let me tell you why. Your simple and uneducated brain makes it easy for you to think non-sequiturs are real proof. Example of a creationist using non-sequiturs as proof; "Life is so complicated (like DNA) that it must be the work of a creator." That's not a logical statement. Let alone qualify as evidence.
@GrowMasterGeneral Well Mr Wizard we can finally put the rumors of a God to rest. Scientist/ Atheists are awaiting your proof on CNN. Uneducated, well since you don't know how much education as well as life experience I have, you have failed in that endeavor as well. Just because you don't believe doesn't make it that God doesn't exist. Since you won't accept my evidence then don't believe. You're under the miss conception that you have to believe to make God real.
@1timby "you won't accept my evidence "... I'm waiting on your evidence. You've not given me any. And the burden of proof that God does exist lies on you. If I said the flying spaghetti monster exists, it wouldn't be your job to prove me wrong. It's my job to prove that my claims are right. And until I have proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists, YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE ME. For the same reason you think Thor, Allah, and Vishnu don't exist, I don't think your God exists.
@GrowMasterGeneral Look up. See the stars; look at life. I don't have to meet Picasso to know that his paintings had a creator. You on the other hand need to have God's signature on every rock you turn over. Even if it was you wouldn't believe. You would come up with another excuse as to why it wasn't God's signature. I have no burden. I know he exists. You need the proof and as I stated you won't except the proof that is right under your nose. And you call us gullible.
@1timby "I don't have to meet Picasso to know that his paintings had a creator." And there it is, I was waiting for that typical Christian non-sequitur logic. I know its hard for your pea-sized brain to understand, but that's not proof, not even circumstantial evidence. It's called a non-sequitur (look it up if you have to). And you do have the burden. How do you not see that the person making the claims has to be the one to back it up?
@GrowMasterGeneral I don't have to prove anything to me. This is a concept that you can't grasp/understand. You're the one arguing a point. It's up to you to provide adequate reasoning behind your argument. Yet you have provided none. You state I don't know what I have experienced/know. That's the first false statement. Then your argument degrades into the same rhetoric that Atheists have been using for years to convince themselves they're correct. Simple Don't BELIEVE.
@1timby " It's up to you to provide adequate reasoning behind your argument." My argument is a counter argument. If I said ghosts do exist, and you say no they don't. Why it now your responsibility to prove me wrong?
@GrowMasterGeneral You want an argument. While I'm stating facts as they pertain to me. Yet you are telling the world that your facts are the only ones that are valid. You call me names because I don't agree with your assessment. Then I'm a bad guy because I don't agree with you. Maybe you need to look in the mirror and really decide why you have such a problem with my statement. The man that made this vid is expressing his opinion. Nothing else. He has no proof otherwise.
@1timby cont- So let me get this straight, because science doesn't have the answer to the origins of spacetime/energy, you believe in religion because it fills the gap? It SHOULDN'T matter wether science can prove where we came from or not. There's no reason to believe in Jesus Christ no more than Apollo or Thor. No religion has anymore evidence for it than another. Instead of asking the question which religion someone should believe in, people should be asking why believe in any at all.
@GrowMasterGeneral That's just your opinion. It has no more validity than mine. Science hasn't a clue where matter came from or how life started. They hypothesize that it might have happened a certain way. So that is taken as fact when science is known for getting things wrong and having to correct themselves. Earth is flat, Earth is the center of the universe, man can't fly, man will never go to the moon; PC's are a pipe dream, etc.
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - so let me get this right, you admit science doesn't know what happened? So then if science can't come up with the right answer, by your own admission (Occam's razor) then God must exist. Believe in Thor if you want as that would be just another dodge of the facts.
BTW, I don't have a religion. I have a faith and a personal walk with the creator. I don't need to coerce anyone to believe.
@1timby You say you have a personal walk with the creator. Really? What's he like? Why is it that so many people throughout the world and throughout time also have felt a personal connection with a creator(s) different than yours? Different in every way. If he exists, he should be the same to everyone. Hindus believe in more than one God. If you'd ask them, they'd say the same thing about each God. That feeling of a personal connection with God, is just a figment of your imagination.
@GrowMasterGeneral Well the creator is just like the one in the bible. Loved us so much he sent a savior when he didn't have too. As for a different creator than mine, Of course he is. Which part of individual don't you understand? Everyone's walk with God is different. That's like saying that all men have black hair. Every person is unique and so is their walk with God. You have no proof that my walk is valid or not. Just an opinion. You know what they say about opinions?
@1timby "You have no proof that my walk is valid or not".. Just like you have no proof that someone's walk with several Gods is valid or not. It's quite amusing that you think your experiences are unique to yourself. You "know" God exists because you have this "connection" with him. Well guess what, people also "know" that Shiva, and Vishnu exist because of their personal relationship with them too. So I guess, by your logic, they exists too.
@1timby You can tell me "science has no proof God doesn't exist" ALL DAY LONG. It doesn't bother me a bit. Why? Because you can't disprove something imaginary (unless it's universally known to be imaginary). You can't disprove bigfoot, lochness, and aliens. Just like YOU can't disprove Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, or Medusa. You think your God is the right God, but you don't know that we both might end up in hell for not following Islam. You can't disprove that Muhammad is the one true prophet.
@GrowMasterGeneral Then why all the hoopla if this is a non-event for you. You can't even prove that anything exists by using science. As I've stated so many times it works for me. You're the one with the problem. You need to decide what to believe in not me. I'm not here to force anyone to believe. That's way above my pay grade.
@1timby "You can't even prove that anything exists by using science." Really? What about atoms? With logic like this, I can see why it's easy for you to believe in fairytales and that an imaginary man lives up in the sky and watches over people who believe in him.
@GrowMasterGeneral What about atoms? Have you seen one? I'll bet not. Yet you believe because someone said they saw them. You use faith everyday to believe in things not evident. Yet when I use the same logic it's faulty. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy. Again why is this so hard for you, you don't have to believe. Yet I can't help but feel that you're fighting so hard because you're under conviction that there may be a God. Then you'd have to be held accountable for your life.
@1timby I don't believe atoms exist because someone said they saw them. More to it than that. Science actually discovered atoms exist before we had the technology to see them. That's the power of science. You're gonna have to move on. Why would I argue with someone who doesn't think atoms exist (despite 100% consensus among scientists and the rest of the world) yet believes in an imaginary being that we CAN'T see just because someone told you he exists.
@GrowMasterGeneral So you're going to lie to everyone and yourself that atoms exist. I thought that you had to have proof. You're proof od observation. Since you haven't seen them then they don't exist. That is the same logic you use for god's nonexistence. You can't have it both ways. You're arguing because you're under conviction. There may be something in the universe that you can't fathom. So it doesn't exist. Yet your conscience is telling you otherwise.
@1timby Either you're purposely doing a strawman argument or you are truly and idiot. If it's the latter, looks like I need to educate you on atoms. First, it sounds like you had no idea we can actually see atoms with powerful microscopes. Secondly, we discovered thru experimentation, that atoms do exist, even decades before we could see them. Third, repeatable experimentation and observation are key things that do prove the existence of something.
@GrowMasterGeneral Another big term for you STRAW MAN. As for being ignorant, well you've made my case for that. I've seen atoms I know they exist however you haven't. So you're accepting the words of someone you've never met about the subject, Yet you accept it without proof. Sounds an awful lot like faith to me. So how many men you haven't met does it take to convince you that something exists without you personally seeing it? Just using your logic.
@1timby " I've seen atoms I know they exist however you haven't."... What??? I've seen atoms boss, everyone has. That's what we're made up of, LOL. And yet again, I have to educate you on atoms; I don't believe atoms exist because someone told me they do. I can do the experiments myself and observe through the microscope myself to prove they exist. That's the beauty of science. Anyone can do these experiments and observe it for themselves. Too bad you can't say the same about God.
@GrowMasterGeneral You've seen the results from the combining of atoms not the individual particles. I've seen atoms at the molecular level. Again you speak of things you don't understand. You make presumptions that have no validity. So when a scientist said that something is then you accept it without proof. Life exists because a scientist said it does. Hmm, I knew life existed before I went to school to learn science. You on the other hand couldn't. How sad.
@1timby Why are you hung up on whether I've personally seen atoms individually? That has absolutely no bearing on anything. I've seen atoms individually, there does that change your whole argument. No it doesn't. And for reasons I've already extensively stated, you don't need to personally see the atoms to know they exist because someone else has done the work and it's there for anyone who wants to see. I don't need to build a GPS satellite myself to know that special relativity is proven.
@GrowMasterGeneral Because I know that you haven't. So your premise is false using your logic. You see matter and based on the assumption that someone you never met is telling you that atoms exist and comprise matter. You accept this. Yet when I say that I have a personal walk with God you can't accept that. Even though you can see the complexity of life and the universe; even though science admits it doesn't know the key elements of their theories. Hmm
@1timby I don't know how many more times I have to tell you this, that I don't believe atoms exist because someone told me they do (yet that's exactly why you believe in God). Atoms are proven to exist because well documented experimentation (that anyone who doubts it can do for themselves) proves they exist. In your case, only you can experience your proof of God and no one else. That's doesn't sound like proof at all. Just a figment of your imagination.
@GrowMasterGeneral No you believe because someone in science said, so you believe. You haven't seen an atom, you've seen the results of the combination of atoms. Big difference. I'm not arguing that atoms exist just that you don't know because you haven't seen them.(Using your logic). You miss the point. You state one thing and then try to say you meant something else. Again the semantics thing. Again you make assumptions. Anyone can experience my God thing.You prefer not to.
@1timby Why do you think I believe atoms exist just because someone told me they do? You just want me to say that because it fits into your argument. I've stated time and time again, thats not true. Anyone can do the experiments to prove they exist for themselves. You CAN'T do that with any aspect of your God. You have no proof of God. Proof is repeatable observation and experimentation that ANYONE can do.
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - I've a personal walk with God that you can't refute. It doesn't come form what someone I don't know tells me. It doesn't come from something I read. That's your problem. You state one thing and mean another. You want to argue semantics. You don't want proof you just want to argue. And as I've stated, Don't believe. I'm not going to make you. I know what I know. You can accept it or reject it. You aren't the first one to reject God. He still loves you.
@1timby " I've a personal walk with God that you can't refute.".. Once again, how do you not understand that the one making the claim is the one that has to back it up? Yeah sure you had a personal walk with God that I can't refute, just like you can't refute that I had a personal walk with the spirit of Elvis.
@GrowMasterGeneral Again you don't understand. The FACTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO ME. Which word didn't you understand?You're the one that is attacking me. You're the one that is making the case against. Just like your court case, it's up to you to prove it. The courts don't go around grabbing folks and making them prove they exist or that they don't believe as they should. You're the prosecution. So prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt (not your doubt).
@1timby "So prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt (not your doubt).".. I will prove my case. My case/argument is ONLY this; you shouldn't believe in anything (ie know for a fact) until the evidence proves it so. Doing otherwise is foolish.
@GrowMasterGeneral You have lied in all your statements. Science admits that it doesn't know where matter came from; it doesn't know how life started. No proof God didn't do it. In your own words "you shouldn't believe in anything until the evidence proves it so. Doing otherwise is foolish". So you made my case. I'm just trying to get you to think. As I've stated "It's up to you". It Is Appointed Unto Men Once to Die. Then once and for all this topic will be laid to rest.
@1timby I've made your case, LOL? So where's your proof of God then? Either you don't understand what the meaning of "proof" is or you're just saying things because you've been beaten and can't think of anything else to say.
@GrowMasterGeneral Again you missed the point. I've made the case, you haven't. You don't want to accept the proof given. However, it's not up to you. That's the point you keep missing. You're responsible for you. If you don't want to believe then God will be sad but the responsibility is all yours. The penalty was paid even for the nonbelievers. It's up to everyone to accept or deny. It's not up to you to make that decision for everyone. That's way above your pay grade.
@1timby You say I may believe in what I want, but your actions don't reflect your words. Again, there is a movement among Christians to get everyone to believe what they believe. I again I say; Christians try to get intelligent design to be taught as a legitimate science, crosses on public lands, prayer time in public school, and every time someone tries to keep America secular, it's all of a sudden a "WAR" on christianity.
@GrowMasterGeneral You make broad false statements about everything. The movement is to provide others with the good news. Again you're under the impression that you have to believe. Again get over yourself. No one is hunting down atheists and killing them for not believing. Yet there are those in other countries that are hunting down Christians and imprisoning or worse killing them. Thanks for making that point for us.
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - Wow crosses on public land How horrid for you. So you made my case again. You state thet others have the right to worship/believe as they will. Yet they are to remove these crosses off public land because you say so. Hmm. Intelligent design has as much right to be taught as Darwinian THEORY. Prayer time was there way before you were born. So other can't worship as they want because it offends you. Hmm again.
@1timby "Yet they are to remove these crosses off public land because you say so."... Not because I say so, but because the Constitution and secular America says so. I don't want my America turning into the middle east because of your religious infection. So you think it's not imposing on my rights by having a cross on public lands? What if I wanted to erect an upside down cross in the name of atheism in your parks, schools, and other public lands?
@GrowMasterGeneral Wrong again. You and yours misinterpret the constitution. It's taken the weak minded political supreme court to hide behind their interpretation instead of the written words in the constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime. It states there will be no sanction of a certain religion not the sanctions against religion. You might of missed that in your atheists courses. These memorials were there long before you were born.
@GrowMasterGeneral Oh please... Can you read the constitution; bill of rights. Also try reading about your so call deceleration concerning the treaty. It was never meant to state that America wasn't Christian. It was to state that America would follow the letter of the law concerning the treaty and not Christian ethics concerning the treaty. It didn't have the support of the people. Go back to
I love science ^__^
Karoke77 19 hours ago
@ChristJesusReigns God sent me here to say :Hi" ^__^
Karoke77 20 hours ago
this fool is going to hell. repent now.
FallofDarkness55 2 weeks ago
@FallofDarkness55 Are you sure?
jfleminator 2 weeks ago
@FallofDarkness55 I really find it amusing how Christians use "you're going to hell" as an excuse to be mean to non-believers. As if you lack any and all forms of communication, you resort to barking at your enemies in a futile attempt to shut them up. This is an invariable sign of intolerance, a narrow mindset, and a general lack of education. There is no solution for you, but for your children I would suggest a strong schooling and a freedom from religious indoctrination. Cheers.
redshark618 2 weeks ago
@redshark618 Pretty sure Poe's Law applies to "FallofDarkness55's" comment.
ahhhhjjjj 1 week ago
@FallofDarkness55 Troll detected.
ahhhhjjjj 1 week ago
@FallofDarkness55
He is not going to hell.
franciso7 1 week ago
@FallofDarkness55 Guess I'll see him there! Can't wait!
IamBread18 5 days ago
@FallofDarkness55 if there is a god, then he must be evil if the majority of humans are going to hell!!! FOR ETERNITY!!!!!! pretty harsh punishment considering rational thought leads you to be a non believer!! "the prancster god, burying dinosaur fossiles to trick us into being non believers" lol, one for you to think about, not that you will even think about it
87TheProdigy87 20 hours ago
@johnnytheprick See, I like your argument because it makes sense to a logical and rational mind. This is why I'm an Atheist. It amazes me how one can disconnect themselves from information like this, ignorant to the fact that none of the scientific proof from today's astrology points towards a deity that created the universe.
1123joey 2 weeks ago
it's "they're" not "their"
Let's face it :-)
earthlinglife 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
boogiebuddy01 2 weeks ago
Also susskind also states alot of times how Humans are intelligent and most other creatures are not. Which is not true because they are constantly finding animals are smarter then we thought. The just found out that rats feel empathy. Also even if they weren't intelligent they have incredible intelligence inside of them. I'm not religious in any sense but I find it incredible people are willing too just ignore all of this order infront of their face.
JG129 3 weeks ago
@JG129 It certainly is not all random but that doesn't lend towards any religious idea (not that I'm accusing you of such things), life itself is a process. Processes are simply intelligible patterns of occurrence. The universe clearly follows some physical laws but that doesn't stop it all being asinine, certainly not random however.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry but I'm not believing that anything was random. I think its just patterns that we do not understand. But our egos cannot stand when we can't explain something.
JG129 3 weeks ago
atheism is a religion too. I side with atheism on the grounds that the truth is always the emptier more futile of two possibilities, though it'd be nice if there were some sort of benevolent higher intelligence floating around looking out for us. The truth is we live in an accidental, morally blank mostly vacuum and when this universe dies, the omniverse will grow another in its place in the manner of a quantum computational tumour. It may be one where life happens. I happen to think not.
LDP060681 3 weeks ago
@LDP060681
Atheism is not a religion. It has no social rituals, it has no affirmed dogma and it certainly does not have a devotional practise. You could potentially say it was a belief system. But it isn't even that. As that is normally naturalism. An Atheist, simply is a person without theism.
NorseDisbeliever 3 weeks ago
@NorseDisbeliever You just replied *exactly* as an atheist would. You guys have your own unique manner of communication- instantly recognisable. Though I suppose your minimal definition is pretty hard to argue with as the clue is in the word itself lol And there are a number of points on which I could respond but there's no point, as atheists tend to consider themselves unimpeachable on their ontologies. Plus Seinfeld is on and I haven't finished my potato-cheesy-assorted vegetables carb fest.
LDP060681 3 weeks ago
@LDP060681
I never said I was unimpeachable. I merely pointed out that atheists hold not a belief because they reject a theist one. They hold it on other merits. Namely Naturalism, or rather that the epistemological claims are knowable and are affirmed through testing and retesting our own assertions. There are room for uncertainty in that, maybe to the extent that it's unknowledgeable. But, that does not give anyone license to speculate or postulate on that uncertainty.
NorseDisbeliever 3 weeks ago
@LDP060681
Xinfinitude 1 day ago
There are scientists who believe in God.
Lets face it.
edgespear101 1 month ago
@edgespear101 Yeah and about 95% of the worlds scientist's don't believe in a God.
Lets face it.
1123joey 2 weeks ago
@1123joey And there are scientists who believe in God.
Lets face it.
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101 Their the minority
Lets face it.
1123joey 2 weeks ago
@1123joey So are Atheists in minority.
Lets face it :-)
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101 Ok what you have to remember is. Scientist's are educated and know a lot more than the average people on the street. Keeping that in mind means your argument is flawed. Having 95% of Scientist's being Atheist is it's own argument against religion. And a good one. Atheist's being the minority globally is inevitable considering it has only just turned up in the last 100 to 150 years. And on top of that, it being very fast growing to this day.
1123joey 2 weeks ago
@1123joey " Scientist's are educated and know a lot more than the average people on the street. Keeping that in mind means your argument is flawed" Yes and there are scientists who do believe in God. There are 5% intelligent (way more intelligent than you) who are scientists who do believe in God. (I'm saying this as I have taken your weak statistic). "Atheism" is not a religion, it does not "start", people become Atheists, they don't convert, just like in Muhammads time when Abu Lahab
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101 Let me just make something clear. Everyone on this planet is born an Atheist. Does a baby or a very young child believe in a deity? Of course not, they have no idea what one is. You're born Atheist, but taught religion. Deal with it. The fact that 5% of scientist's believe in a God has nothing to do with the fact that 95% of scientist's don't believe. Because there isn't any evidence for God, the 95% that don't believe cancel that 5% out. Did I say Atheism is a religion?
1123joey 2 weeks ago
@1123joey No scientists don't cancel other scientists out, lol this isn't maths. You said Atheism turned up 100 to 150 years ago and now you say every child born is Atheist? Really? So if I go to a new born baby and say do you believe in God, will they say, "I have a disbelief in God", okay if you say so! Babies don't know anything!
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@1123joey
you took the words right out of my mouth.
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101
so tell me, when will your god make an appearance? have you spoken to "him" lately? like most scientific endeavours, what evidence do you have? visual? aural? oral? tactile? or is it a case of "everything i see before me"?
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
@johnnytheprick I would suggest visiting: w wwDOTslideshareDOTnet/peacediscovery/eye-of-absolute-wisdom
w wwDOTonly-faithDOTcom/why-science-fails-to-explain-god-2
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101
if you have a picture of "him" or voice recording or email..........id be more than convinced that there is a "god". failing that, you should be locked up for your own good.
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
@johnnytheprick It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. I have given the links and that is all I can do, the rest is upto you. Take care, good bye.
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101
but our numbers are growing...
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
@johnnytheprick So are other religions' numbers growing, just because more people believe in something false doesn't make it anymore the truth.
edgespear101 2 weeks ago
@edgespear101
that was not my point.
i think people are starting to realise that there is no god. i liken religion to astrology and numerology.
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
Susskind was a plumber,its true I tell you
naybobdenod 1 month ago
Typical Christian: I get to force my belief into the classroom to be taught right along science, I get to put my religious symbol (only christians, no other religions) on public lands, i get to block a proposition that denies gays basic human rights, I get to proselytize door to door. Yet it's the atheists who are self-centered and impose their beliefs on others.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Typical Atheist. Believes they have all the answers; don't live in reality; ave perceived threats they are forced to do something that they are not. Then try to use delusional logic to make their cases. You/yours try every day to force others to believe as you do. Those are the facts. Still not the point. The belief in God is what keeps Christians from doing the very atrocities that you try and proclaim is being done. Time for a reality check.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "Time for a reality check."... "don't live in reality"... "Again time to wake up." Do these things make you feel better when you say them? Do you feel like you're the better person? It's just funny to me.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral No but I
ve hopes that you'll come back to reality and get to the real issues. you want to misdirect the worlds woes on Christians. The last time I checked. no one was harmed in any way by looking at a cross, religious memorial, etc. Unlike what goes on in the world today. Yet you perceive such harm from supposedly having to look at a cross outside your window. I truly feel sorry for you. The world & Christianity has really mistreated you. Time to grow up.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby The point is, you have no proof of God. And you're foolish for determining something to be absolute fact without any evidence to support it. Your personal connection with God is not proof. I met with someone who had a personal connection with Elvis' ghost, I don't hardly consider that proof of ghosts. And you shouldn't either. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim (you). And it's a shame that you think America should be infected with your fairytale religion.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral I don't need to prove to me that God exists. You're the one telling me that I can't believe as I want. It's OK for you to force others to believe as you do using same logic that Atheists are useing they are forced to look at crosses & pray because they would feel ostracized if they didn't. Hmm seem it's OK for you but not others. Again "DON'T BELIEVE". America was Christian before you were even a gleam in your great great grand parents eye.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby this discussion has gone way wrong for both...
scienceisknolwedge 1 month ago
@scienceisknolwedge How so?
1timby 1 month ago
Let me get this straight, I'm self centered because I don't want your religion to be imposed on anyone who doesn't want it. I don't think you know the meaning of "self-centered."
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral No your self centered because you feel it's your right to determine what other should feel and do. The basic definition of self centered. concerned solely or chiefly with one's own interests, welfare, etc.; "engrossed in self"; selfish; "egotistical". All the dictionary needs is your picture.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby State where I said it's my right to determine what others should feel and do. Another straw man by the staw man.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral By your comments to me. Christians are forcing you to do X. That's your words not mine. I have to see a cross when i look out my window. poor baby. I have to see things everyday i don't want to see. Yet I'm not here bemoaning that I was forced to do anything.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Did you forget about intelligent design trying to be taught as a legitimate science, did you forget about gays being treated as second class citizens? Yeah, I'm the self centered one who's trying to impose their beliefs.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Did you forget that Darwinism hasn't been proven and was refuted by many of his time as well as Darwin himself. What do gays have to do with this. Can you say red herring. Smoke and mirrors. Now Christians are hunting down Gays and killing them in the streets. Good one. Forcing them to be not gay. Another good one. Another perceived atrocity by you and others. Lets not forget that we are against stealing, murder, etc. Don't want to forget those atrocities.
1timby 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1timby "What do gays have to do with this. Can you say red herring.".. Gays can't get married because christian america says the bible says it's wrong. That's not imposing your belief on others?
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
Ok lets suppose that there was no intelligent design on creation of universe, creationist fail. But athiest are double crossed in the sense that if universe was created by itself than who created the first living thing? Where did that first cell come from????? If there is than why don't we see more new cells being evoled and new species bringing itself from nothing. Science can't prove anything, how can it defy the truth?
ayatullah100b 1 month ago
@ayatullah100b Good question - the conditions on Earth have changed a lot since the first cell came about, so it could be that conditions on Earth today cannot create new life from scratch. It's likely that if a cell formed from scratch, it would be primitive, and unevolved, and killed by bacteria so quickly we would never find out it existed as it would never have any descendants. The process of life from scratch is called abiogenesis, and there are many theories suggesting how life can begin.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
Theoretical physicist Hmm no facts. The universe designed itself and life? What a crock. There has never been any proof, other than theories, that the universe just happened. The laws of Physics has holes big enough to drive a truck through yet they are taken as fact. Newtonian physics has been proven wrong. Even Einstein doubted certain aspects of his research. Yet we have another gentleman spouting his opinions. So where did matter come from to form the universe? What about the start of life?
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I would say quantum mechanics (which we have a lot of evidence for) explains how the universe could have started, and it explains definitively how matter can come from nothing. Newtonian physics isn't a problem any more - Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics put the nail in the coffin for those ways of thinking 100 years ago. While we don't know how the universe began, we have some good theories of how the universe may have created itself. I will explain some if you want me to.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 So now theories are now facts? Matter can't come from nothing. It has to come from something. Energy is something. If the start of the universe is because of some energy then where did the energy come from? So many unanswered questions and the theory is considered fact. Even Einsteins THEORIES are unproven. Yes they work in some models. That's not real world. Newtonian physics is correct either as it breaks down on the subatomic level. So again no facts just theories.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Sorry if I came across as if I was saying theories were facts, I didn't mean that with what I said. We recently discovered (in the last 10 years) that the universe is a flat universe, one which stretches on forever, and contains a total of 0 energy. Yep, that's right, 0 energy. This works because we have negative energy as well as positive energy, and the negative energy (potential energy) cancels out the positive energy. Also, we find random virtual particles popping in and out of
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 I've spent my entire career in Technical realm. I look at all the posed theories as well as ones once considered laws(now found to be false or at least not total true). Are U talking of dark matter? If so another theory. Science has spent centuries trying to reverse engineer the universe. The have a very limited tool and knowledge set. So I would take what science says with a grain of salt. Odds are against the universe being created out of nothing and from nothing.
1timby 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Where there is negative energy or positive energy it had to come from somewhere. Besides - or + energy is only relative to something. So we're back to where this energy comes from. Unknown dimensions? Could be.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby if the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (and some other interpretations too) is correct, then causality is false, so as it is believed to be likely now there is 0 energy in total for the universe then it could be that it quantum fluctuated into existence. With regards to energy being relative, as I understand it potential energy is negative, and kinetic energy is positive, so in a singularity (if the big bang is true), then maybe they could cancel each other out?
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 If it's correct? If Higgs is correct? If Einstein is correct? You're talking apples and oranges. -1 + 1 =0. Matter is different. I should know I've been dealing with science and equations for over 30 years. Just because a molecule has a negative charge doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same for matter. Just because there is one molecule of matter and another of anti-matter doesn't mean you have no matter. You have 2 molecules of matter. Still doesn't answer the question.
1timby 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 If I take a molecule of matter and one of antimatter and put them together I have a big explosion. This changes the states of the matter to other matter. However, you had to have matter to begin with. Only a creator could have created matter. It can't just happen out of nothing. Even science can agree on that.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby If you add one electron and positron you get two photons, thus 'destroying' matter as photons aren't matter. This is true of any antimatter explosion. We see that the opposite also happens (there is experimental evidence for this) that two photons will randomly change into an electron-positron pair for a very brief period of time. MRI scanners rely on the principle that virtual photons can appear from nothing. Basically, science has shown that matter very regularly appears from nothing.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Appears from nothing(an observation). Man didn't see germs so they blames other things for sickness. Man observed that the earth was the center of the universe. Man really can't see outside our solar system so they make theories about the varied nebula, stars, and planets. They observe light that has traveled for millennium; make a guess as to what's out there. A few examples of false assumptions made by observations.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Virtual particles were actually predicted before they were observed - and that's why quantum mechanics and relativity are such good models for the universe: they make accurate predictions. I disagree that "at best its just a guess"; we have extremely good evidence for many theories. To say that no theory is proven is a true statement - but you can apply it to anything. There is a chance that we are currently inside the Matrix - its just so unlikely to be true that we don't believe this.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Predicted. So I can say that in the future there will be snow. My prediction would be 100% true. What I didn't say was where/when/how much. So I got 1 out of 4. I wouldn't want to base anything on that. Quantum mechanics are just theories perceived to be true because a small group got together and said so. While it may seem to be true, it has a long way to go before being validated to be factual. It's just a guess until proven factual. May be a good guess.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby What I meant was that we predicted something using a model, then tested this prediction, and the prediction was correct. You don't know when it will snow to a good degree of accuracy because amazingly we understand quantum mechanics better than the weather. Several decades ago, using quantum mechanics, the maximum possible mass of any white dwarf was calculated. We have now discovered 1000s of white dwarfs, and not a single one exceeds this mass, even though many are close to the mass.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 I read an article concerning observations. A scientist took some photos to his class in astrophysics. He asked the class what they thought of the pics & asked them to tell him the subject matter of the pics. Most of the class agreed they were of a planet. The scientist revealed that they were close ups of his knee. So much for observations. One can convince others that they see things that aren't really there. Can you say mirages.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Firstly, this also happens in religion, but with even more bias (e.g. images of Jesus in toast). Secondly, yes I agree this does happen in science where observations can be falsely attributed. But had the students known more about astronomy (or skin biology) they would have instantly recognised it was not a planet. Also, theories are not made in a 30 minute session (usually it takes many years), and lots of specific observations under different circumstances are taken to eliminate bias.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 I'm not saying that it doesn't. What I'm saying is that science sometime wants a result and sees it. That is what happened with the students. They assumed that the teacher had taken pics of a planet. So they made the linkage to the result they thought was the most likely. I'm not saying that all scientist are faking results. I'm saying that man may never find the real info for creation of the universe/life. That doesn't mean that God isn't the creator.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I know what you mean about how people will see results when there are none - however, I think there are good mechanisms in place to stop these bad ideas from becoming commonplace, like peer review of papers. Of course, if a theory is shown to be wrong then it is canned immediately, which is a pretty good defense I guess, and most data is empirical anyway, so I guess it won't be open to much interpretation. I also agree with you that we may never find out how the universe began.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby But surely there is no need to invoke a deity in the creation of the universe? Isn't it better to just say that nobody knows? After all, there are an infinite number of possibilities for what could be out there - doesn't that make the probability of a highly specific being having created the universe infintesimely small?
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 For me it's very important. It's a crucial part of my faith. However, you may believe as you wish. The marvels of the universe; it's perfect order screams out it had a creator.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I guess that's fair enough if that's your opinion. As for my background - I used to be a very strong roman catholic. I started questioning my beliefs about 5 years ago, as I started realising just how insignificant man is compared to the infinite universe, and how texts like the Bible dramatise and over-exaggerate man's place in the universe to the point of arrogance. I also found that there is so much metaphor in the Bible (Adam and Eve for instance) that you can't tell what is literal.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 I'm sorry that you came to that point in your life. I find that when I read and study I find out how insignificant I am. Until I read the part about what God did for me. There are times I can't visualize or truly understand a crucifixion.
I look at it this way, if God is really God and he created all things how is what God did not to be taken literally? The bible doesn't explain how God did these miracles just that he did. No one back then or today could understand.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Thanks for the thought but don't worry - being an atheist is completely fine - not depressing or meaningless like many Christians think - I used to think that to an extent myself. After I stopped believing in God, there was a year of my life when I felt confused and lost. I thought there being no absolute morality meant there was no meaning to life or anything. I thought that as there was no way to repent for our wrongdoings meant that no one was a 'good person'
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby But I think I've realised why I was thinking about the world from the wrong perspective. Christianity is of course much more than just a belief in God - its an entire philosophy on life. All the morals and beliefs of Christianity are completely fine (I think personally), but they come from the assumption that there is a God - such as believing that mankind is inherently sinful, and that absolute morality can only be created by a deity.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby These philosophies and others form the backbone of the beliefs of many (they did with me) so I never questioned them - they seem like they are not mutually exclusive to religion. As an analogy - its like agreeing with Newtonian physics, and then never questioning it - until you find out about relativity. Then one day, I was asking myself whether life really has a purpose or not - then it hit me: Our purpose is whatever we want it to be.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby It was then that I realised that it was my perspective that was wrong - that I was looking at reality the way a pessimist sees a half full cup. That people are inherently good not evil as people always try to help others - that morality is completely subjective, but in an absolute way (see Sam Harris's videos) and that a good purpose for life is to fulfill your own purpose, yet to not interfere with the purposes of others. These are my personal philosophies.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby I think when many Christians try to picture being an atheist they find it unbearable to think of a world without a God. But this is because of the other principles they rely on, which are based off the idea that God exists and that the Bible is true. But to ACTUALLY imagine what is like to be an atheist, you merely need to change your perspective on life. Other atheists I have met seem to have gone through the same period of confusion.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby Sorry for the essay :) By the way, not trying to convert you or anything - just explain why we atheists are just as happy as any Christians or people of any religion. To answer your question - the Bible contains all the same tropes as a story written by man - there are many literary techniques used in it to create drama. When these devices are used to make docu-dramas, facts go out of the window . From this it seems extremely likely that the Bible was at least never meant to be literal.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Con't - If you say that you built a home, I can't truly fathom everything it took to do it. I can see the craftsmanship and the beauty. If I were to go back in time a few hundred years and hand a person a laptop or a smart phone they wouldn't have a point of reference to understand. You could try to explain but they couldn't grasp all the concepts. This of course is an oversimplification of what God has done.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby When I feel insignificant because of the vastness of the universe - I think about how we are a part of the universe - how the atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the furnaces of star, and how as maybe the only intelligent part of the universe, we are the consciousness of the universe - the only way for the universe to perceive itself. However, I think we perceive the universe as incredible because we spend our entire lives inside it - so maybe we are all biased in a way.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Your premise that we are all evil is where I think you went astray. We're all sinful by nature. That's why God sent Christ. Not to condemn but to save. Many Christians as well as unbelievers think you have to be perfect. That would mean that works were the most important thing. It's not by works that we enter the grace of God. It's a free gift given in love. I had a hard time for years with the sin thing. Once I understood that God really wanted me. Prob solved.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I must explain: I didn't stop being a Christian because I felt emotionally distraught , sinful or because I 'hated' God (I never did or do). This is a common mistake which Christians seem to make when speaking to atheists. The idea that everyone secretly believes in God but denies it is false. Replace the word 'God' with the word 'Santa' in your comments, and then read it to yourself. That is the same way I and any atheist views the idea of a God. (I'm not trying to be offensive btw)
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Then I'm confused. First, I thought that an Atheist was a person who didn't believe in any Deity? You state you don't hate God. So you let yourself be deceived into believing that there isn't a creator. How can someone who sees the universe decide that a nonentity (the universe, created itself. There was nothing now there's a universe? This cries out that there is a creator. Next why would a creator go to all the trouble and just go away?
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I don't believe there is or ever was a deity (i.e. God) - I was over the character limit, so I said 'God' instead of 'a deity' to reduce the character count :) . I don't hate God in the same way I don't hate Santa Claus - you can't hate a fictional character. Atheists are anyone who believes deities and anything supernatural are fictional. Also, cause and effect is not a physical law, its an unproven assumption - it is easily possible (even likely) that the universe sprang from nothing.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@1timby The reason I stopped believing in God was because I realised how unlikely it is that there is a God. Wanting there to be a deity wouldn't change whether there was a deity or not, and every time I prayed I would ask for God to show me or the world a physical sign that he was real. A god could easily create a physical sign of his/her existence. Nothing happened. From research, It seems there is no evidence that a god exists - the base position is to assume nothing, and that no God exists.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 How many signs did Christ give and still the religious leaders denied them? How many times did Christ heal the sic, raise the dead, and even the disciples questioned him? Man's faculties have a difficult time with things that happen out of what they feel is the natural realm. You say without any qualms there is no evidence God exists. Yet you see it every day. Science tries to explain it away but is unable. They fill the gapes with postulates to make the science work.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Firstly, I don't think the Bible is a reliable source of evidence, considering the number of versions available, the number of times it has been translated, the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the 'God of the gaps' argument has been argued to death over the course of history. First, people would argue that science can't explain diseases because a god is causing them. Then that science can't explain electricity because a god is causing it.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Well there are variad translations. That doesn't bother me. The bible was written in several languages. There is some problems with literalness. EX: I say nice shirt. Without the body language and intonation the reader wouldn't know what I was trying to convey. Also, various books were written to a different audience. This leads to folks saying the bible has contradictions that aren't really contradiction.
1timby 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Cont- extraordinary evidence. 400 folks witness the resurrection of Christ. 5000 were fed, Water to wine was witnessed. Other things can be traced back to accounts from historians or government leaders of the time. Not sure of your point concerning God of gaps.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby If you can provide any historical sources of evidence for these events I would be glad to look at them (not bible quotes). Speakers of Hebrew who can read the original bible say that the original is vastly different from the new versions and that much fewer of the logical contradictions are in it anyway. With regard to a 'God of the gaps' argument, it is an argument where someone effectively says how science can't explain everything, so God must have created those 'unexplainable' events.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Science can't explain the gaps( fact). So I don't see how that is a problem for anyone. There has been many attempts by science to try and prove how life started or how the universe came into being. However, science is unable to provide the crucial elements in their theories. If I did that I would be told that I was nuts. Yet everyone believes science even though they have these crucial gaps. How did matter come from nothing? How did life evolve from nothing?
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby my point is that the argument would be valid if science was at a complete standstill with a problem that was nigh on impossible to solve - but it isn't. Saying that science has gaps therefore God, is like saying that you'll never finish constructing a building because the building isn't already finished. You're assuming that the gaps science sometimes leaves will NEVER be explained, when history has shown that they often will be explained by science after a short while.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Science has big gaps. Consider the vast amount of knowelde in the universe. Even with mans vast leaps in technology and science that have barley scratched the surface. It's very easy to see that science has a long way to go just with the human genome. Let along a cure for cancer, how to travel to the next star, what holds matter together, etc. As I stated God already knows this. He's the one that did it.
1timby 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 cont - as for science's explanation in a short while, it took centuries for the flat earth theory to go away, Newtonian Physics was just now thought to be faulty. Einsteins theories are now being explored. Even with all our great leaps in tech, we still have a limited tool set and knowledge set. I don't look for unequivocal proof of God's demise anytime in man's history.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Science does have gaps, but the job of science is to fill in those gaps. Scientific advances tend to creep up without warning, so for all we know a cure for cancer is just around the corner. Also we already know that the Strong force holds matter together don't we? People used to say 'science can't explain electricity - so science can't explain everything, only a deity'. Of course, science can now explain electricity, and there is no reason why science can't explain everything
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 The theory is that strong force holds matter together. That's a made up term for something that science doesn't understand. Just a little while ago that was a problem when I want to use God to fill those gaps. But it's OK for a scientist to fill the gaps with a made up unsubstantiated term. I prefer the dark matter name. However, it's still a hypothesis until proven.
1timby 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 cont - Funny you should say science understands electricity. There are two theories of how electricity flows. One is hole flow and one is electron flow. So which is th real answer? Depends on who you ask. So they don't really know things they stipulate that as far as they know it's this way. To use that logic I can explain anything. All I have to do is make up something that seems plausible whether right or wrong and pass it off as fact.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby There is another point of view many take on theories in science. Newton wasn't necessarily 'wrong': his theories just didn't describe the full story. You can still say that E=0.5mv^2 so long as you assume that the mass remains constant and the theory holds true. Relativity is merely a theory that adds to Newton's theories and makes them more precise, by taking into account more factors. Even if the OPERA result is true there are theories about them which keep Relativity intact.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Assume full story all these are really the truth that they really didn't know but that's OK since they don't really have to be. Just name it Strong Gravity, Dark Matter and let it go. God didn't assume anything. He created the universes. Because science can't figure out how doesn't make it false. When I do that I'm told that I need proof. Yet science flounders around and makes formulas to prove something that can't be really proven.
1timby 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 Cont - I really like to theorizes/fantasize about how things happened.However, just like science no matter how many fancy names I add there are these big huge gaps that can't be explained away by theories or formulas. Creation of matter from nothing, how the universe who is not sentient made itself, life just happened.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I agree that science will always have its flaws, and there are many gaps in it at the moment. But while you criticize science for 'making up' ideas like the strong force, and dark matter, you seem to praise the biggest made fancy name of them all. You can't just say that every theory science has come up with so far to explain the beginning of the universe is probably wrong, yet then go on to say that your theory about an invisible, telepathic man in the sky is DEFINITELY correct.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 The big bang..... God Said Let there be light. Sounds a lot like the big bang and creation of the universe. God doesn't tell us how he created the Heavens, earth, or life. Just that he did. Who would understand the mechanics of such a feat? Not science of today. Science utilizes a very limited tool set & knowledge for their theories. The science of tomorrow will make the science of today look like the science of 100 years ago.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby cont. I don't mean to sound harsh but that's what it sounds like your saying to me. I'm not saying that science's theories are right, just that I think your God Theory is also wrong. Also, try searching 'god of the gaps' on google, and look through the search results to see why this argument is false - I get the feeling i'm not very good at explaining it :L . A true gap which may be evidence for a god would be one which actually defies the physical laws, rather than an unexplained event.
cdplayerx50 1 month ago
@cdplayerx50 You're very welcome to have your opinion. As I have stated, and as you know, there are many that will not believe. It's not my purview to make you or anyone believe anything they don't want. It's up to you to decide. Thanks for listening to my side. I wish you well. Also, I hope this doesn't offend, God bless.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby What makes you think God exists? What makes you think it's your God? Why not Vishnu, Shiva, Apollo, Thor? There are any number of things we can believe in, but choose not to because there's absolutely no evidence or reason to. The truth is, when you look at the universe and life, there's no evidence of a designer. Religion/God is the first attempt to explain why we're here, why we die, diseases, where we go when we die. People need to be reassured that someone is looking out for them.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Why do you care. You don't believe in God or any deity. So what I believe is irrelevant. There's no evidence that string theory is correct just a supposition by a community that is known to have false facts. Otherwise there would be no need to look further for how the universe was created. You take something and try to reverse engineer it making observations that may or may not be correct. Then offer them as fact. Why no the spaghetti monster theory?
1timby 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Cont - just because you haven't found the proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science has missed tons of things yet you and the nonbelievers feel that's good enough. You can believe man's futile attempts at making sense out of the universe as factual yet miss the proverbial trees in the forest. There is as much evidence of intelligent design as there is that the universe just happened to create it self. Can't see the forest for the trees.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "you haven't found the proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.".... It doesn't mean it does exist either, and you SHOULDN'T believe in it until the evidence proves it. That is how science works. That is why science has "missed tons of things." Science does not declare something to be fact before there is any proof for it's existence. Once it finds evidence, only then can theories be put up to the scientific method. If you still believe in intelligent design look up kitzmiller vs dover.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral An why should I believe on the science flavor of the day. It has been proven wrong time & time again. So we're to take the word of science. The word that states "Well we don't know where matter came from but we have some theories". Hmm. What about life from nothing? Again science states ":Well we're not sure". So if I look at the odds against the universe creating itself as opposed to the intelligent design. Seems like a slam dunk to me.
1timby 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - science hasn't found evidence/facts. Just theories. A law suit. I can prove anything in court if I have enough money. Justice went out of the judicial system years ago.Besides it was thrown out not because of merit but because of the supposed conflict with the Constitution. This was a decision which could be protested at a later date. So that argument doesn't hold water. You haven't a leg to stand on. No proof God doesn't exist. ACLU hasn't a clue.
1timby 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - science hasn't found evidence/facts. Just theories. A law suit. I can prove anything in court if I have enough money. Justice went out of the judicial system years ago.Besides it was thrown out not because of merit but because of the supposed conflict with the Constitution. This was a decision which could be protested at a later date. So that argument doesn't hold water. You haven't a leg to stand on. No proof God doesn't exist. ACLU hasn't a clue.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby There is no evidence of intelligent design. You see evidence because you wanna see evidence. It's like looking at a cloud in the sky and trying to make out the image you wanna see. You see the face of God, I just see a cloud, someone else may see a bunny. I don't believe spacetime and energy came from nothing. They are eternal. If you can believe your God is eternal, then you can believe spacetime/energy is eternal. Occam's razor will tell you God is not the likely answer.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral You don't see evidence because you don't want to. You're prejudice because of your belief when even science states they don't know if there is a God. So you're not being honest. I can say the same with the observations from science. The case of the missing link in the 90's. Dark Matter, strong gravity, etc. Occam's razor will tell you God is the likely answer. Odds are for God not the universe creating itself. Do the math.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "You don't see evidence because you don't want to. "... I don't see evidence because there is none. Show me the evidence then. You don't have evidence. Let me tell you why. Your simple and uneducated brain makes it easy for you to think non-sequiturs are real proof. Example of a creationist using non-sequiturs as proof; "Life is so complicated (like DNA) that it must be the work of a creator." That's not a logical statement. Let alone qualify as evidence.
Give me your evidence of God.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Well Mr Wizard we can finally put the rumors of a God to rest. Scientist/ Atheists are awaiting your proof on CNN. Uneducated, well since you don't know how much education as well as life experience I have, you have failed in that endeavor as well. Just because you don't believe doesn't make it that God doesn't exist. Since you won't accept my evidence then don't believe. You're under the miss conception that you have to believe to make God real.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "you won't accept my evidence "... I'm waiting on your evidence. You've not given me any. And the burden of proof that God does exist lies on you. If I said the flying spaghetti monster exists, it wouldn't be your job to prove me wrong. It's my job to prove that my claims are right. And until I have proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists, YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE ME. For the same reason you think Thor, Allah, and Vishnu don't exist, I don't think your God exists.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Look up. See the stars; look at life. I don't have to meet Picasso to know that his paintings had a creator. You on the other hand need to have God's signature on every rock you turn over. Even if it was you wouldn't believe. You would come up with another excuse as to why it wasn't God's signature. I have no burden. I know he exists. You need the proof and as I stated you won't except the proof that is right under your nose. And you call us gullible.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "I don't have to meet Picasso to know that his paintings had a creator." And there it is, I was waiting for that typical Christian non-sequitur logic. I know its hard for your pea-sized brain to understand, but that's not proof, not even circumstantial evidence. It's called a non-sequitur (look it up if you have to). And you do have the burden. How do you not see that the person making the claims has to be the one to back it up?
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral I don't have to prove anything to me. This is a concept that you can't grasp/understand. You're the one arguing a point. It's up to you to provide adequate reasoning behind your argument. Yet you have provided none. You state I don't know what I have experienced/know. That's the first false statement. Then your argument degrades into the same rhetoric that Atheists have been using for years to convince themselves they're correct. Simple Don't BELIEVE.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby " It's up to you to provide adequate reasoning behind your argument." My argument is a counter argument. If I said ghosts do exist, and you say no they don't. Why it now your responsibility to prove me wrong?
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral You want an argument. While I'm stating facts as they pertain to me. Yet you are telling the world that your facts are the only ones that are valid. You call me names because I don't agree with your assessment. Then I'm a bad guy because I don't agree with you. Maybe you need to look in the mirror and really decide why you have such a problem with my statement. The man that made this vid is expressing his opinion. Nothing else. He has no proof otherwise.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby cont- So let me get this straight, because science doesn't have the answer to the origins of spacetime/energy, you believe in religion because it fills the gap? It SHOULDN'T matter wether science can prove where we came from or not. There's no reason to believe in Jesus Christ no more than Apollo or Thor. No religion has anymore evidence for it than another. Instead of asking the question which religion someone should believe in, people should be asking why believe in any at all.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral That's just your opinion. It has no more validity than mine. Science hasn't a clue where matter came from or how life started. They hypothesize that it might have happened a certain way. So that is taken as fact when science is known for getting things wrong and having to correct themselves. Earth is flat, Earth is the center of the universe, man can't fly, man will never go to the moon; PC's are a pipe dream, etc.
1timby 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - so let me get this right, you admit science doesn't know what happened? So then if science can't come up with the right answer, by your own admission (Occam's razor) then God must exist. Believe in Thor if you want as that would be just another dodge of the facts.
BTW, I don't have a religion. I have a faith and a personal walk with the creator. I don't need to coerce anyone to believe.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby You say you have a personal walk with the creator. Really? What's he like? Why is it that so many people throughout the world and throughout time also have felt a personal connection with a creator(s) different than yours? Different in every way. If he exists, he should be the same to everyone. Hindus believe in more than one God. If you'd ask them, they'd say the same thing about each God. That feeling of a personal connection with God, is just a figment of your imagination.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Well the creator is just like the one in the bible. Loved us so much he sent a savior when he didn't have too. As for a different creator than mine, Of course he is. Which part of individual don't you understand? Everyone's walk with God is different. That's like saying that all men have black hair. Every person is unique and so is their walk with God. You have no proof that my walk is valid or not. Just an opinion. You know what they say about opinions?
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "You have no proof that my walk is valid or not".. Just like you have no proof that someone's walk with several Gods is valid or not. It's quite amusing that you think your experiences are unique to yourself. You "know" God exists because you have this "connection" with him. Well guess what, people also "know" that Shiva, and Vishnu exist because of their personal relationship with them too. So I guess, by your logic, they exists too.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@1timby You can tell me "science has no proof God doesn't exist" ALL DAY LONG. It doesn't bother me a bit. Why? Because you can't disprove something imaginary (unless it's universally known to be imaginary). You can't disprove bigfoot, lochness, and aliens. Just like YOU can't disprove Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, or Medusa. You think your God is the right God, but you don't know that we both might end up in hell for not following Islam. You can't disprove that Muhammad is the one true prophet.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Then why all the hoopla if this is a non-event for you. You can't even prove that anything exists by using science. As I've stated so many times it works for me. You're the one with the problem. You need to decide what to believe in not me. I'm not here to force anyone to believe. That's way above my pay grade.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "You can't even prove that anything exists by using science." Really? What about atoms? With logic like this, I can see why it's easy for you to believe in fairytales and that an imaginary man lives up in the sky and watches over people who believe in him.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral What about atoms? Have you seen one? I'll bet not. Yet you believe because someone said they saw them. You use faith everyday to believe in things not evident. Yet when I use the same logic it's faulty. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy. Again why is this so hard for you, you don't have to believe. Yet I can't help but feel that you're fighting so hard because you're under conviction that there may be a God. Then you'd have to be held accountable for your life.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I don't believe atoms exist because someone said they saw them. More to it than that. Science actually discovered atoms exist before we had the technology to see them. That's the power of science. You're gonna have to move on. Why would I argue with someone who doesn't think atoms exist (despite 100% consensus among scientists and the rest of the world) yet believes in an imaginary being that we CAN'T see just because someone told you he exists.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral So you're going to lie to everyone and yourself that atoms exist. I thought that you had to have proof. You're proof od observation. Since you haven't seen them then they don't exist. That is the same logic you use for god's nonexistence. You can't have it both ways. You're arguing because you're under conviction. There may be something in the universe that you can't fathom. So it doesn't exist. Yet your conscience is telling you otherwise.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Either you're purposely doing a strawman argument or you are truly and idiot. If it's the latter, looks like I need to educate you on atoms. First, it sounds like you had no idea we can actually see atoms with powerful microscopes. Secondly, we discovered thru experimentation, that atoms do exist, even decades before we could see them. Third, repeatable experimentation and observation are key things that do prove the existence of something.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Another big term for you STRAW MAN. As for being ignorant, well you've made my case for that. I've seen atoms I know they exist however you haven't. So you're accepting the words of someone you've never met about the subject, Yet you accept it without proof. Sounds an awful lot like faith to me. So how many men you haven't met does it take to convince you that something exists without you personally seeing it? Just using your logic.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby " I've seen atoms I know they exist however you haven't."... What??? I've seen atoms boss, everyone has. That's what we're made up of, LOL. And yet again, I have to educate you on atoms; I don't believe atoms exist because someone told me they do. I can do the experiments myself and observe through the microscope myself to prove they exist. That's the beauty of science. Anyone can do these experiments and observe it for themselves. Too bad you can't say the same about God.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral You've seen the results from the combining of atoms not the individual particles. I've seen atoms at the molecular level. Again you speak of things you don't understand. You make presumptions that have no validity. So when a scientist said that something is then you accept it without proof. Life exists because a scientist said it does. Hmm, I knew life existed before I went to school to learn science. You on the other hand couldn't. How sad.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Why are you hung up on whether I've personally seen atoms individually? That has absolutely no bearing on anything. I've seen atoms individually, there does that change your whole argument. No it doesn't. And for reasons I've already extensively stated, you don't need to personally see the atoms to know they exist because someone else has done the work and it's there for anyone who wants to see. I don't need to build a GPS satellite myself to know that special relativity is proven.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Because I know that you haven't. So your premise is false using your logic. You see matter and based on the assumption that someone you never met is telling you that atoms exist and comprise matter. You accept this. Yet when I say that I have a personal walk with God you can't accept that. Even though you can see the complexity of life and the universe; even though science admits it doesn't know the key elements of their theories. Hmm
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I don't know how many more times I have to tell you this, that I don't believe atoms exist because someone told me they do (yet that's exactly why you believe in God). Atoms are proven to exist because well documented experimentation (that anyone who doubts it can do for themselves) proves they exist. In your case, only you can experience your proof of God and no one else. That's doesn't sound like proof at all. Just a figment of your imagination.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral No you believe because someone in science said, so you believe. You haven't seen an atom, you've seen the results of the combination of atoms. Big difference. I'm not arguing that atoms exist just that you don't know because you haven't seen them.(Using your logic). You miss the point. You state one thing and then try to say you meant something else. Again the semantics thing. Again you make assumptions. Anyone can experience my God thing.You prefer not to.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby Why do you think I believe atoms exist just because someone told me they do? You just want me to say that because it fits into your argument. I've stated time and time again, thats not true. Anyone can do the experiments to prove they exist for themselves. You CAN'T do that with any aspect of your God. You have no proof of God. Proof is repeatable observation and experimentation that ANYONE can do.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - I've a personal walk with God that you can't refute. It doesn't come form what someone I don't know tells me. It doesn't come from something I read. That's your problem. You state one thing and mean another. You want to argue semantics. You don't want proof you just want to argue. And as I've stated, Don't believe. I'm not going to make you. I know what I know. You can accept it or reject it. You aren't the first one to reject God. He still loves you.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby " I've a personal walk with God that you can't refute.".. Once again, how do you not understand that the one making the claim is the one that has to back it up? Yeah sure you had a personal walk with God that I can't refute, just like you can't refute that I had a personal walk with the spirit of Elvis.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Again you don't understand. The FACTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO ME. Which word didn't you understand?You're the one that is attacking me. You're the one that is making the case against. Just like your court case, it's up to you to prove it. The courts don't go around grabbing folks and making them prove they exist or that they don't believe as they should. You're the prosecution. So prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt (not your doubt).
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "So prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt (not your doubt).".. I will prove my case. My case/argument is ONLY this; you shouldn't believe in anything (ie know for a fact) until the evidence proves it so. Doing otherwise is foolish.
I rest my case.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral You have lied in all your statements. Science admits that it doesn't know where matter came from; it doesn't know how life started. No proof God didn't do it. In your own words "you shouldn't believe in anything until the evidence proves it so. Doing otherwise is foolish". So you made my case. I'm just trying to get you to think. As I've stated "It's up to you". It Is Appointed Unto Men Once to Die. Then once and for all this topic will be laid to rest.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby I've made your case, LOL? So where's your proof of God then? Either you don't understand what the meaning of "proof" is or you're just saying things because you've been beaten and can't think of anything else to say.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Again you missed the point. I've made the case, you haven't. You don't want to accept the proof given. However, it's not up to you. That's the point you keep missing. You're responsible for you. If you don't want to believe then God will be sad but the responsibility is all yours. The penalty was paid even for the nonbelievers. It's up to everyone to accept or deny. It's not up to you to make that decision for everyone. That's way above your pay grade.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "I've made the case, you haven't. "... LOL, does it make you feel better to say that?
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral No not really. you're the one with the problem, You may believe in what you want.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby You say I may believe in what I want, but your actions don't reflect your words. Again, there is a movement among Christians to get everyone to believe what they believe. I again I say; Christians try to get intelligent design to be taught as a legitimate science, crosses on public lands, prayer time in public school, and every time someone tries to keep America secular, it's all of a sudden a "WAR" on christianity.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral You make broad false statements about everything. The movement is to provide others with the good news. Again you're under the impression that you have to believe. Again get over yourself. No one is hunting down atheists and killing them for not believing. Yet there are those in other countries that are hunting down Christians and imprisoning or worse killing them. Thanks for making that point for us.
1timby 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral cont - Wow crosses on public land How horrid for you. So you made my case again. You state thet others have the right to worship/believe as they will. Yet they are to remove these crosses off public land because you say so. Hmm. Intelligent design has as much right to be taught as Darwinian THEORY. Prayer time was there way before you were born. So other can't worship as they want because it offends you. Hmm again.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby "Yet they are to remove these crosses off public land because you say so."... Not because I say so, but because the Constitution and secular America says so. I don't want my America turning into the middle east because of your religious infection. So you think it's not imposing on my rights by having a cross on public lands? What if I wanted to erect an upside down cross in the name of atheism in your parks, schools, and other public lands?
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Wrong again. You and yours misinterpret the constitution. It's taken the weak minded political supreme court to hide behind their interpretation instead of the written words in the constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime. It states there will be no sanction of a certain religion not the sanctions against religion. You might of missed that in your atheists courses. These memorials were there long before you were born.
1timby 1 month ago
@1timby You should look up the Treaty of Tripoli. It clearly states America is a non-secular nation. You might have missed that in bible school.
GrowMasterGeneral 1 month ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Oh please... Can you read the constitution; bill of rights. Also try reading about your so call deceleration concerning the treaty. It was never meant to state that America wasn't Christian. It was to state that America would follow the letter of the law concerning the treaty and not Christian ethics concerning the treaty. It didn't have the support of the people. Go back to