Pascal never said you would be punished for not believing. The wager does say "it is better to have one and not need it than need one and not have one". Religions are the weapons of the afterlife, just like education.
As soon as it's brought up "conversation over" lol Par for the course. We're talking about the God of the Bible here, you know the one that said "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me." And in order to truly debunk it, wouldn't you technically have to die first?
It is arguable from a Biblical standpoint if we choose to have faith. It is arguable from a Providential and Compatibilist standpoint if we choose to have faith. But faith is not in "Having." Faith is "having," in "doing," which means whether or not we choose to believe, or choose to believe we can choose to believe, we can choose to follow without knowing if our beliefs are justified by theology. Thus, the gripe that we can not choose to believe is contentious, dear video poster.
Why wuld u be a atheist? if theres no god you dont lose anything if your an christian but if your a atheist and god exist you go to HELL forever! idiot atheists.
stupid conversation: Muslim to Christian : what if ur wrong? Christian to atheist: what if you're wrong? Jew to all: what if ur wrong? [future made-up religion] says you all are screwed and will be tortured forever after you die UNTIL you believe [future made-up religion].
LET'S NOT FORGET THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE RELIGIONS HERE THAT PUNISH NON-BELIEVERS FOREVER (ISLAM and other made up religions of the future)
One of the problems with Pascal's wager is that you do lose a lot if you buy into Christian theology. For one thing you totally stunt any spiritual growth since Christianity is a fear and shame based religion. But that argument would mean nothing to an atheist because he doesn't belief in spirit.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
What are those people going about monsters and stuff , if you fail to understand that this universe was created by a higher power then you are the dumbest person in the entire universe! If you say that God is not real then you are telling me that this universe with its laws and stuff came by a chance , an accident ! Where is the logic behind it ? We are not talking about any monster at all but for the one who sent prophets throughout history , Moses, Jesus, Muhammed !
"if you fail to understand that this universe was created by a higher power then you are the dumbest person in the entire universe"
If only you could provide demonstrable evidence for your assertion. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the existence of a deity.
'Chance' is not a fair representation for the existence of a the universe. There are very specific ways that particles can act with each other. The resulting universe is dictated by those specific actions.
@pandstar Demonstrable evidence is the universe itself and everything that is around us ! "Chance " is not a fair represantation for the existence , really ? but if it is not a chance than someone made it , its one or the other , you don't have any other options ! So just because some particles act with each other that means there is no one behind it who is making those particles to act the way they do ? Just because you know the process doesn't mean that no one made that process work
@pandstar That is an asertion that requires evidence , are you kidding me ? its like you have plenty of options and for this one you need some evidence for it ! What option is there other than someone made the universe can you tell me ? The other option is that the universe came to being by a mere chance cos it didn't plan to be here if it was planed then thats your God , either way it leads to someone creating it ! Did those particles planed before that we gonna become humans , did they ?
@pandstar You are saying the universe wasn't a chance but nobody created it ! what kind of statement is that ? If I walk down the street and find some money , this is called a chance cos I didn't plan to find this money , a mere chance ! Universe was either created or was there by a chance , accident thats all ! You can come up with all kinds of arguments but you will have no other options ! Plus you have all the prophets which were sent from God to tell us that !
@MrCobra811 Is it by chance that an object dropped will fall? Is it by chance that water held below 32 F will freeze? Is it by chance that light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum?
The universe exists because matter and energy behave according to certain patterns. It is not "chance," it is the inevitable outcome of the available matter, the forces of nature, and the laws of physics.
Also, there are a lot of "prophets" from a lot of different "gods." Which should we believe?
@TrevorBlack79 No is not a chance that an object falls something made that to fall , what made the universe to come into being ? Did the molecules and particles plan in advance that we are gonna be here ? If not than its called a chance ! By the way you are just explaining the process of how it could have been created , and just because you have a process doesn't mean that nobody made that process , A car has a process of how it works too but does that mean nobody made that process ?
@MrCobra811 "No is not a chance that an object falls something made that to fall "
Yes. A natural force we call "gravity."
"If not than its called a chance !"
No, it isn't. It's called "nature."
"A car has a process of how it works too but does that mean nobody made that process ?"
A car cannot exist without someone's conscious interaction in the natural world. Planets, stars, the forces of nature, and the laws of physics and motion can.
@TrevorBlack79 As for the prophets of different Gods its very easy to distinguish which one is fake and which one is true ! There are not many religions that say God is most powerful , he is not born or dies , he is not like any of his creation ,he knows everything , he is the lord of the Worlds ! Only one religion says those things , and that is Islam ! Christianity and Judaism are of the same branch but they have mixed the message of the prophets and corrupted it
@MrCobra811 "There are not many religions that say God is most powerful , he is not born or dies , he is not like any of his creation ,he knows everything , he is the lord of the Worlds !"
None of this is proof - it is all claims for the properties that your preferred God possesses (Also, it's false to claim that no other religion outside the Abrahamic faiths claims these properties for its god(s).). Claims must be verified. What evidence can you present to substantiate these claims?
In the end, suffering will be your reward as you have not acknowledge God into your life. Many Christians who are poor, will go to heaven as you guy will suffer the difference.
@Tellinhowitis121 Dependant on the religions and what you believe. I could believe that the Pastafarian Hell is the eternal washing of the great pan of sauces.
@Tellinhowitis121 I believe that whatever religion you follow, that's the afterlife you will follow after death. So yeah, multiple heavens and hells. Maybe if you're an atheist, you get reincarnated or something. No one knows.
@gupsphoo haha sure why not? maybe it is that inconvenient? i saw this video about how this interviewer asking a muslim scholar "why do americans/foreigners allow us to build mosques in their countries since they believe in freedom of religion when we do not in our countries (idk what muslim country)" Anyway the muslim scholar said some stupid metaphor about how three people responded with three different answers to the question 2+2. The three people responded with 3, 4, and 5. Continued---->
@gupsphoo He said that the individual who responded with "4" was correct, which represented Islam. 3 and 5 represented all the other "wrong" religions or Christianity, hinduism, scientology, etc. Honestly, who gives a shit; I try challenging teens my age (bible thumpers) about philosophy and the best thing they can do to prove God is bible verses. LMAO. Or how about little kids who r too young to understand. they've all been indoctrinated. Religion is retarded tbh.
"there is a simple reason why the universe is complex, its called entropy"" I'm afraid you have confused this term. It's quite the contrary to what you propose. The Entropy principle state that all systems trend to disorder or randomness, and what we see in the universe is the contrary, this is why I said that the order of the universe and complexity of life can't be explained that way. Another wrong assumption you make is to say God is complex. Is light, energy or love complex? God isn't either
@dejesusluisx I understand it pefectly. When a cup falls on the floor it breaks, but a broken cup never reassembles itself into a whole cup. The unbroken cup is a closed system. Since the universe started out as a singularity, it was a closed a closed system, over periods of billions of years, entropy has caused it to become more and more complex. What we see in the Universe is not contrary... and all of those are complex. Thus the maker is more complex to have made them, its basic logic.
@MegaLolburger ""entropy has caused it to become more and more complex"" I'm sorry, but is not like that, and your cup example is very good. The cup, when broken, is less complex, less organized than when it was in one piece, it broke randomly. That's my point and the meaning of the term. The universe now is more organized, not less, so what we see is contrary to the entropy principle. The current universe requires lots of energy to be created and maintained; it can't be produced spontaneously.
@dejesusluisx Once it was a single item, now it is many, just because we no longer have the use for it does not mean that it is physically less complex than it was in its unbroken form. Like you said the cup broke randomly (Now you are saying random events CAN happen?), each piece is unique, of varying size. No cup will ever break in the same way it did, and it cannot be put back together in the way it was. Organisation does not mean complexity. The Universe is not organised. Continued...
@MegaLolburger ""The Universe is not organised."" Have you ever blown something up? It randomly break in many pieces, and they all fall randomly. The universe is not random, galaxies are aligned in clusters, stars are aligned in galaxies, mostly in a spiral, planets are aligned in orbital equatorial planes to their respective stars, you don't see random polar orbits. What are the odds for all that alignment? What are the odds of random molecules forming a cellular structure? infinitesimal...
@dejesusluisx As you said, it is random. Organistaion is not randomness. Einstein expressed this idea with the phrase: 'God does not throw dice'. Since we can't predict many events, we can refer the universe as random.
We have observed the complete opposite of all those.
It happened twice on Earth - GFAJ-1 proves that. It also proved that our perception of where life can and cannot exist and under what condition was nonsense. Look up the Drake Equation, the probability of life is quite high.
@MegaLolburger 'God does not throw dice' Einstein used that quote to negate quantum physics postulates, and in my opinion, Einstein was right. Quantum physicists can't explain many phenomena in this relatively new discipline, but eventually they will be explained, described and modeled, and we will know for sure if God plays dice or not. We can predict, model, or understand the causes of all macro events in the universe, the quantum events are the ones that are yet to be understood.
@dejesusluisx We can't possibly know everything and we never will. Our species will go extinct before we have all the answers. That is definite.
'We can predict, model, or understand the causes of all macro events in the universe'? How could you possibly know that? There is no doubt that there are countless macro events that are yet to (and that never will) be discovered, & ones we will never comprehend.
@MegaLolburger ""How could you possibly know that?"" I'll give you an example: we don't understand gravity, but we can predict it's effects; we can't predict a super nova, but we know it's causes; we don't understand the big bang, but we can model initial inflationary states. Of course something that has not been discovered or was recently discovered can't possibly be predicted, modeled, or understood; but with enough study, we get to them eventually. My point is that we have clues for the macro
@MegaLolburger ""you were implying that we know of all macro events in the Universe."" not even close, read the premise again, I said ""we can predict, model, or understand the causes of all macro events in the universe"" by "can" I mean that we have the capacity to do so for all macro phenomena, but not so for quantum events. I didn't said that we had predicted, modeled or understood those phenomena which is (I guess) what you imply by saying "we know". I guess you misunderstood my point.
@dejesusluisx You don't understand do you? How do you know that there is another form of macro phenomena that will never be discovered? If it cant be discovered we don't have the capacity to even predict its effects since we wont know of its existance. You should not of simply said 'all' as that implies that we currently know of every macro event in the universe.
@MegaLolburger ""If it cant be discovered we don't have the capacity to even predict its effects"" We are talking about the same thing, you aren't just getting my point or I haven't used the right words. We have the capacity, hence we "can" either model them, predict them or understand them once we discover them. I don't know how else explain it, sorry. For quantum phenomena, we need a breakthrough, or some type of instrumentation yet to be made to achieve that capacity.
We cant predict something if we are completely unaware of existance; that's my point. You originally said we can predict, understand, and model ALL (maybe you shouldn't have said all) macro events. That is complete nonsense. You have no way of knowing whether there are undiscovered macro events that we couldn't model, predict or understand even if we did discover them. That is my point.
@MegaLolburger ""Is English your first language?"" No, I might have to use other words to convey what I mean, because it doesn't seem we are getting anywhere. For the third time, when I say "we can predict" I refer to the capacity, the potential, not that we have actually done it. I honestly don't know how else to explain it, so let's drop it.
@dejesusluisx I am entirely open to the concept of an intelligent creator; I just don't believe that he thinks we are special and that he has created a paradise (or a nightmare) for us when we cease to live. Or that he is a he. Im not sure why I keep calling the 'intelligent creator' a 'he'.
@MegaLolburger ""I just don't believe that he thinks we are special and that he has created a paradise (or a nightmare) for us when we cease to live"" To be honest with you, I don't either, but that doesn't contradict the basic dogmas, just the small details. Heaven in the presence of God, hell is the absence. I can explain in more detail later. There are my theologians that share that vision and are believers, so you atheism is towards certain detail of certain dogmas and different views are OK
@dejesusluisx A 'God' is a human fabrication, a very old one. An intelligent creator however is possible, yet none of the 'evidence' people have so far can even be considered evidence, the standard "hey look how complicated everything is, look at the stars and the moon and the trees, how can you say that was not created?" is just observing your surroundings and assuming intelligence was required to create it. It's a very common argument yet it proves nothing. It is just an assumption.
@MegaLolburger God is the name we give to an intelligent creator, to a divine consciousness. Is a matter of semantics. A divine consciousness is an immaterial entity, a form of eternal energy, that directs the universe towards an environment suitable for the existence of other conscious beings. That is God, and is the same God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, or any other name we care to give Him. We fail in describing dogmas in our desire to understand Him.
@dejesusluisx Exactly, a divine conciousness. Key word; 'Divine'.
My concept of an intelligent creator and yours are totally different/
Your concept happens to be the kind I am totally opposed to, also why are you assuming that the creator has any gender at all? Dosen't that really show you that it is a human concept? How could you possibly know of its gender, whether 'it' is even an 'it'?
@MegaLolburger ""has any gender at all" He doesn't have any gender, but we have to describe Him someway. If we say "She", it would sound as a joke, and if we say "It", it will relegate Him to the same place of a "thing", so it would not be appropriate to refer to a supreme consciousness in that way. Why are you opposed to a concept of a divine consciousness and yet are willing to accept the concept of a creator? I don't get it. You mean aliens? If so, then who created the aliens? Is a non-answer
@dejesusluisx If 'he' dosen't have a Gender you would simply refer to the creator as the creator. She does not sound like a joke that is just absurd and sexist. Why would reffering to the creator as she rather than he be less of a joke? Cant you see how ridiculous your argument is?
Because a divine creator is a primitive human concept, and yours is based off that concept. Maybe, who knows? You certainly dont. LOL the same could be said about your God, that's hypocritical and contradictory.
@MegaLolburger ""reffering to the creator as she rather than he be less of a joke?"" because the term "she" has already being used by atheists to mock and disrespect the belief in God, not because I'm sexist. Is all a matter of when, how and in what context the terms are used what makes them acceptable or sympathetic to be used under similar circumstances. ""Because a divine creator is a primitive human concept"" buoyant force is a primitive concept brought by Archimides, and we still believe it
@dejesusluisx Im sorry but that is just ridiculous. I have never met a single atheist who belives that a she would be any more ridiculous than a he. I've never even heard of that happening. The concept of a gender itself is enough for Atheists. Making your god a Male rather than a Female makes no effect. There have been many female Gods yet we believe they are equally as imaginary as a male one. Buoyant force is provable which is why it is scientifically accepted. A God is not.
@MegaLolburger ""GFAJ-1"" that's an excellent example of adaptation to a harsh environment. What that proves is the incredible flexibility existing life has to survive (almost supernatural ; ) ). What exactly do you think it proves instead? I believe there's life in other planets. It's illogical to think God created such a big universe for conscious beings to evolve just to make one species of them. Where religious arguments fail is when God image is seen as physical and not as consciousness
@dejesusluisx EVERY being we know of on this planet builds its DNA out of Phospherous, GFA J1 uses the usually poisonous element arsenic in place of phosphorus in it's DNA.
So it proves that life can exist in situations that we thought impossible, that elements we thought could never make up a life form actually can. This proves that the conditions we thought life HAD to have is completely incorrect so your argument that Earth is perfect for life and therefore intelligently created is nonsense.
@MegaLolburger GFA-J1 doesn't substitute all phosphorus for arsenic, this is an existing (not new) bacterium that in the absence of phosphorus uses arsenic for some metabolic functions. Wiki quote: "experts who have evaluated the paper have concluded that the reported studies do not provide enough evidence to support the claims made by the authors". For an atheist, you have a lot of faith. ""life can exist in situations that we thought impossible"" true, but achaebacteria is a better example.
@MegaLolburger "so your argument that Earth is perfect for life and therefore intelligently created is nonsense" when did I said that? You must me confusing me with someone else. I said that the order of the universe and the complexity of life points to a creator, and that's indeed the case. I also said I believe there is extraterrestrial life and that belief is logically compatible with the existence of a creator. I'm afraid you concentrate more in defending a position than in getting the point
@dejesusluisx The Universe is the totality of everything, including the earth, you are implying the Earth is 'organised' in a way that allows us to exist.
It's not the case. Complexity as I have already stated is a human concept and the Universe is far from ordered. You have no way of knowing whether our Universe is the most complicated out of them all, so stop acting like you do. Im afraid you are too busy with this circular and fundamentally flawed argument to notice the point has been made.
@MegaLolburger ""the Universe is far from ordered"" why the milky way has all the stars arranged in a equatorial plane, resembling a hurricane, when they could be randomly arranged? why are the planets also arranged this way? the universe is pretty ordered, it may be even more ordered, but we don't know how the universe will be in a billion yrs, is a continuous process. We don't know if there are other universes. Again, more faith on your part ; ).
@dejesusluisx You do realise that the 'pattern' of each Galaxy is totally different and random right? Saying that because our galaxy could of looked different is proof of order or creation is absurd. I don't think you even realise how stupid what you just said is.
Planets arranged like what? We actually have a pretty good idea of how it will look.
What proof do you have that the Universe is ordered? So far its been all rubbish and assumptions. We have evidence for other Universes, so nice try.
@MegaLolburger ""We have evidence for other Universes, so nice try."" No, we have mathematical calculations that suggest there might be, but they are based on certain assumptions, not in reality. In the real world there's only one universe.
@MegaLolburger A quote from the same article: ""several groups have confirmed Pernose's finding while others have found no evidence for it."" "Cosmologists should have a decent data set to play with in a couple of years or so."" So, my brother, as I said, you're truly a person of faith.
@dejesusluisx We have CMB evidence, which speaks for itself, other people have tried to replicate the conditions of the findings but couldn't thus why some could not find evidence, other could and that's why they found evidence. They have the CMB evidence, which is undeniable, you saw the image for yourself. The data set they gain will only expand upon existing knowledge. So, once again, it is not faith. Faith is in the absence of evidence. We have evidence. Yet again, nice try.
@MegaLolburger ""They have the CMB evidence, which is undeniable"" First, if other experts are questioning it it is deniable by definition, second even if it eventually shows to be true, what is the conclusion? The data show bumps in the CMB, but the data didn't show where the those bumps came from, saying other universes caused them is like saying the lights I saw last week in the sky were aliens spaceships. You have more faith than theists.
@dejesusluisx They are bubbles, and they fit exactly with external inflation. Earlier you were saying about how reliable we are in predicting, understanding even macro events and now all of a sudden you wish to deny this? The same basic concept instead we have tangible proof which fits exactly with a theory we already have?
That's a bad analogy, it fits perfectly with an existing theory and we can (and will in time) prove that these are what they appear to be. So again, how is it faith?
@MegaLolburger "They are bubbles, and they fit exactly with external inflation" yes, and the lights I saw fit exactly the description people give from alien spaceships, but that isn't evidence. It's funny that I'm the advocate for evidence in this argument, don't you think? That desire to believe in something is intrinsic to humans, that passion is why we say human are hot wired for God, the problem is that in the absence of God, we replace Him for something else: money, materialism, or CMB data
@dejesusluisx Bubbles as observed in the CMB fits with external inflation, it is an conclusion based on evidence. Observing a light in the sky and assuming it is an alien spaceship is an assumption based on no evidence, simple.
We replace 'him' for reality.
You are giving your God human properties, basing your belief on religions you dismiss, and you believe you have a personal relationship and commute with the creator of the Universe. You are insane, there is no nice way to put it.
@MegaLolburger ""You are insane, there is no nice way to put it"" you are judging based on a paradigm that rules you life, you can't see pass it. Tell me where is the logical flaw in my arguments, tell me why is impossible to communicate with an immaterial consciousness that exists inside each of us, tell me why is insane that an immaterial, powerful, supernatural entity created the universe, you are giving just bias appreciations, which are as worthless as your atheist religion.
@dejesusluisx You say you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. With something that has absoloutely no tangible evidence to support the concept.
Look at this from my perspective; imagine if a grown man walked up to you and told you that he regularly communicated via telepathy with Santa Clause, and he was being serious. That is what you are saying is like to me. Except what you are saying is ten times more ridiculous. Spiritual nonsense and assumptions is all you offer.
@MegaLolburger ""communicated via telepathy with Santa Clause"" is a very bad example, since no other person has claimed that; where as a communication with God has been claimed even previous to Biblical times by millions, so you got to give this argument the benefit of the doubt, if not, you're just being narrow minded.
@dejesusluisx That was a pathetic attempt at trying to refute me point. It is what your argument sounds to me, whether is happened or not is irrelevant.
That is Argumentum ad populum. Numbers mean nothing. Just because alot of people even pre biblical (I dont see why you said that as if Biblical times meant anything) believe they communicate with a higher being does not make it true or go in your favour. Thousands of people believe aliens have vistied Earth, that dosen't make it so.
@dejesusluisx You also replied to an old comment, I posted a newer version.
A child who lives in poverty did not make a wrong decision ,it is not their fault. Surely you must know that what you just said is nonsense?
Good for you, And I will continue to live a happy peaceful life without commiting myself to a fantasy. Now can we please cease this argument? It is circular, We are never going to reach an agreement.
@MegaLolburger ""A child who lives in poverty did not make a wrong decision"" as I said: "most people suffer because of bad choices from them or people that have authority over them" the child suffering is not his own decision but the decision of corrupt governments, warlords, capitalists, religious fanatics and even sometimes their own parents, all of which have authority and influence over that child's life. We have enough resources in the world to feed everyone, so most suffering is man made.
@dejesusluisx And yet not all of the African leaders are at fault either. They are in charge of very poor countries, albeit some leaders are corrupt, yet others simply cannot fix everything, and never will be able to. The parent suffer just as much as the children.
@MegaLolburger "They are in charge of very poor countries" Doesn't matter, if they have land, which they do in excess, there is no need for hunger. If you pass a law of the max acreage anyone can own and distribute the rest among the people and teach them to cultivate, hunger will be gone. If there are droughts, a well can be excavated for less of the cost of an AK-47. Kids carry AK-47 and villages don't have water, so, no, no excuses for governments and capitalists that just care for themselves
@dejesusluisx Do you understand that money is required in order to do that? It costs money these days to do anything, running land in a place such as Africa is harder than doing so in a western country, drought is more common, famine is more common, loss of crops is more common etc etc. Im sorry but you have the worst understanding of why these things happen. It's pretty ignorant to assume the people bring it on themselves. Its typical of a believer to say such utter shit.
@MegaLolburger ""Do you understand that money is required in order to do that?"" of course, as I said, it costs less to set-up a well than an AK-47 and even 10 yr olds have them, so money isn't the problem. Do you realize that a family of 4 can be maintained with an acre of land, water and hard work? I'm not talking about setting up a crop export industry, that would cost billions. You have to think out of the box, all problems have solutions if there is the will to solve them.
@dejesusluisx Ever heard of hyperinflation? Their currency is worthless. That is why they rely on outside help. Selling arms is a controlled business, AK-47's are in abundance thanks to the Cold war. For example, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the 80s (and got their asses kicked) they left behind a lot of munitions and weapons. That is why the Taliban have AK-47's and RPGs, they happen to be the cheapest, and sturdiest weapons around. Buying weapons isn't the only way to obtain them.
Bear in mind this article is dated, and we have since been able to back this up even more.
Observable evidence is the best kind of evidence.
Who are you to speak about reality when you believe you have a personal relationship with a supernatural being that created everything? Imagine you were being told by a grown man, that he believed in Santa and they often talked, what would you say?
@MegaLolburger ""the 'pattern' of each Galaxy is totally different and random right?"" I don't think you clearly understand the concept of randomness. Either something has a pattern or is random, something can't have a pattern and be random at the same time. Randomness is the absence of any patterns by definition. If stars distributions in galaxies were random you would see all galaxies in the form of Nebulae, like clouds, without any shape or form. Most undisturbed galaxies are spiral in form.
Pattern = 'natural or chance marking, configuration, or design: patterns of frost on the window'. You said ours looked like a hurricane, no Galaxy we have ever observed looks the same, each has a unique look. Not pattern as in a recurring characteristic or trait. You dont understand the meaning of the word in the context. No galaxy looks the same and not all of them are spiral galaxies (we have a full understanding of why they are spiral, so look it up)
@dejesusluisx We were adament that we knew the six building blocks for DNA for life on Earth. That small (yet major) discovery has changed our understanding of the conditions in which life can arise. You can thank the media for the controversy as they mis reported it and hyped it up.
You have taken 'new' too literally. It simply means recently discovered.
How am I suppose to have an argument with you when your idea of research is Wikipedia?
@MegaLolburger "has changed our understanding of the conditions in which life can arise" read the story of the archaebacteria, that was really a game changer. I'm not in disagreement with you in the point that people underestimate life's potential, I just think this discovery has yet to prove it's relevance. It might be a huge thing, but it has to be confirmed independently yet. Regardless, neither this discovery nor the archaebacteria has any business in the debate of the existence of a creator
@dejesusluisx You are overlooking the fact here. GFA-J1 builds its DNA out of another element. Archaebacteria has the same DNA makeup that every other life form that we know of (barre GFAJ-1) has. The conditions in which life arise and life exist are different things.
Of course it does. Your own personal belief maybe not, as you are open to the concept of E.T life.
Also, Why do you believe the creator is divine? It proves your belief is based off a fabricated one.
@MegaLolburger ""Why do you believe the creator is divine?"" is a matter of definition. Divine correspond or conforms to a deity, and the definition of a deity is: "recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers", so the fact that we respect, regard and worship this "creator" makes Him a deity, therefore is "divine". I don't get why are you so hanged in the semantics?
@dejesusluisx Just becuase you have stripped religion down to just the God part does not make your belief any more credible. If your belief is based off religions in which you dismiss why do you believe in a God? A God is a primitive concept. So you believe in a divine creator as already stated, do you worship it? As you already said you don't believe it cares about you, so why worship it (assuming you do)? This is why im wrapped up in the semantics. Im trying to understand your beliefs.
@MegaLolburger ""you don't believe it cares about you, so why worship it"" God cares, because he had answered my prayers. I worship Him not because someone told me to or because He demands it (which is not the case, that's a wrong interpretation if the first commandment) I worship God because once I understood He was real and once I received his grace, I was so grateful for the change in my life that out of gratitude I worship Him.
a) you are a schizo, its funny how he chooses to ignore the prayers of billions of people who actually need him yet he talks to a guy who is fortunate enough to even own a computer
b) You base your faith off religions you dismiss
Millions of people with a different belief to you think God talks to them. Millions of people also say the voices in their head tell them to do bad things. This argument cant progress. I think youre insane, sorry
@MegaLolburger "he chooses to ignore the prayers of billions"" you're asking too much, how can I possibly know the reason of each and every prayer not answered? I can only talk for myself. You need to talk to a psychic, not a believer for that. ""the voices in their head tell them to do bad things"" I have never hear a voice in my head, that's not the way God communicates, at least not in my experience. God communicates through flashes, is like in a second, you understand and everything is clear
@dejesusluisx How many kids do you think who live in poverty pray for a family member to be saved, pray for god to give them grace or whatever crap you said happened to you.
Millions upon millions. Are they not legitimate enough reasons?
@MegaLolburger ""How many kids do you think who live in poverty pray for a family member to be saved"" Don't know, all I can tell you is that no one lives forever, so is irrelevant to pray for someone to be saved from death. If you live in grace, you don't fear death, you are prepared, so death becomes like a new stage in your life. I do pray for people not to suffer, for souls to be saved and for enlightenment and understanding among other things.
@MegaLolburger ""Your God put them into a life of suffering"" Not really, most people suffer because of bad choices from them or people that have authority over them. The exception would be accidents and diseases and the faith always helps and comforts you when that happens.
""you are talking to yourself"" if that were the case, the happiness, peace and transformation in my life and in my home is well worth it.
@MegaLolburger ""Im trying to understand your beliefs"" I believe there is a creator, a first cause, a divine consciousness that started it all and is ever present in us. I received manifestations and revelations from Him. I don't believe all dogmas because God has revealed the truth to me, and some are just misinterpretations. If you want to understand my beliefs, ask me and I will give you all the answers. My answers must be based on reason and logic and not in "because God said so".
@dejesusluisx As Earth is only 'perfect' for life here. For alien life (and it is undeniable that there is alien life) our planet could be toxic. There is absoloutely no doubt whatsoever that alien life exists, and there is no doubt that intelligent beings (more intelligent than us) exist. The Universe is massive, and to believe we humans are special and created by an intelligent designer so until proven otherwise we should carry on believing we are God's favourite is ignorant at best.
@MegaLolburger ""There is absoloutely no doubt whatsoever that alien life exists"" I do believe life exists in other planets, but is a belief based on logical assumptions. Now moving to the other side of the table for a moment, there is no evidence to support your argument. Is funny the conviction you use to defend that faith argument and yet you have no faith in the creator. Many scientists would question your argument and probably more atheists than what you think also would.
@dejesusluisx It's based on evidence. It is based on things we observe, it is based on logic. Faith is required when there is no evidence. We know life exists, it's right here on Earth, we know of basic neccessitys for life, We have already identified hundreds of planets that are in the perfect place to harbour life, and we already know of planets/ moons with water which increases the chances of alien life drastically. The meteorite ALH84001 contains what appears to be fossilised nanobacteria.
Pascal Wager is a way to get you interested. What if... Well you will never know if you don't experience it. I was a non-believer but I kept looking and one of the reasons I kept looking was this what if probability. Now believing is one thing, and living in grace is another. When you live in grace, when you are in God's wavelength, your life is transformed. You have to be in communion with God to be saved, believing is not enough. That's why you reject the pascal wager, you don't understand.
I agree with Matt on Pascal's Wager as a conversation stopper. I have two additional conversation stoppers: Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. They are, perhaps, the two weakest apologists in the Christian camp. You bring in Pascal, Strobel, or McDowell and I'm done. And if you want to claim victory, go ahead. If you are convinced by that nonsense, no facts that I could ever present will convince you otherwise.
StrangerInAStrangeLand's Wager : I wager that an omnipotent, sane loving god could not cause or allow anyone to suffer for eternity. I wager that if there is a god who causes or allows anyone to suffer for eternity, it cannot be relied upon to be omnipotent, sane & loving & simply cannot be trusted. If it cannot be trusted, it doesn't matter what we do.
@Strangerinasland so what shall happen to evil and its followers, for evil and good are true byproducts of choice and if God removes choice then would that be good? Or is it that the eternal suffering is not his cause but ours and like our greatest society in earth we are justly punished and we all think it is fair, evil must be removed forever or choice must be removed
If I see god, I will say "Lord Odin, please forgive me and all the billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and everyone else for getting it wrong."
"Therefore, those to whom God has imparted religion by intuition are very fortunate and justly convinced. But to those who do not have it, we can give it only by reasoning, waiting for God to give them spiritual insight, without which faith is only human and useless for salvation."
(part 2) For my part I tell you, ‘You would soon have faith, if you renounced pleasure.’ Now, it is for you to begin. If I could, I would give you faith. I cannot do so, nor therefore test the truth of what you say. But you can well renounce pleasure and test whether what I say is true."
(Part 1) “‘(What if you are made so that you are unable to believe. What, then, should you do?)’
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason (the Wager) brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions.....
‘I would soon have renounced pleasure,’ say they (non-believers), ‘had I faith.’
The decision of the atheist is wholly irrational. Of course, seeing the irrationality of your position should be enough to convince your intellect that you need to chose differently, but it does not mean that you have "your heart in the game" and that you actually believe. Pascal offers a remedy for this himself; which I will show in the following comment
The Wager demonstrates that the Theist holds a more rational position than the Atheist. If we can not know the truth in the matter of the existence of God with conclusive proof, then it comes down to pragmatic belief to decide our course of action under a forced option. The atheist risk finite against infinite, 0 against 1 (no matter how many other ones there are, it's still an irrational decision to stick with 0).
"Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only gave reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it." Pascal shows that reason is not a solid foundation for a worldview, because reason is "blown with a breath in every direction".
"The last proceeding of reason is to recognise that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it."
This, is the most juvenile, babyish "rebuttal" to the Wager that I've so far come across on my dry search for an intelligent conversation over Pascal's Wager on youtube. I challenge just ONE of you, to read the whole Pensees and actually learn for yourself what Pascal has to say of the Wager, and the reasons he invokes it. Learn that Pascal NEVER mentioned hell in his Wager, learn that he NEVER meant the Wager to function as a proof, and then study the meaning of pragmatic arguments.
@JungleJargon Yes, actually they do. Atoms are the simple example of that, life is the most complex example of that to date. If everything is evidence for god, then nothing is evidence for god: You could just as well replace god with whatever supernatural entity you'd like and it would always be a tautology. Nonsense.
@Murdulo Not so, the function that hydrogen has in life forms, as an essential nano part, means that its Maker has to be all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out time and space like the Bible says that God did, when He made everything there is.
@JungleJargon So the fact that a particle exists proves a supernatural entity created it? That's a terrible, terrible argument my deluded friend. You have absolutely no argument or evidence, so far, to assert atoms can only be created by a god. So you're only wishing it. That doesn't make it real, sorry.
@Murdulo It is not just a particle. Hydrogen is a working nanomachine part and working machine parts do not make themselves. All lesser functions have a maker.
@Murdulo No, the elements do not make themselves with any intent. They are made with the intent of making life forms because of the fact that they do work in life forms. You have not proved evolution happens. The variation of species is not general evolution and general evolution cannot be proven. You cannot use preexisting designs as evidence of no design. The fossils are evidence of the flood that happened 4400 years ago. The earth is 6000 years old because that is all we have evidence for.
@JungleJargon Oh well... I guess rational discussion ends here. So because atoms work in life forms that means they were meant for life? That's pretty stupid of you to assert, moreover given the ratio between matter used by life forms over the total sum of matter in the universe.
Macroevolution has been proven countless times. The fossils are evidence of bone structures being crushed by layers of rocks and under specific conditions. The flood never happened. The earth is older. Go read a book.
@Murdulo There are limits placed on your macro (special) evolution. There is a limit to how big and how small an animal can get. Life forms are virtually unchanged since the time of the flood.
watch?v=fE8VO6z4tcg
Yes, hydrogen alone is the most common element and it is working inside of us. In fact most of the most common elements are used in life forms with only a few exceptions. If that was a vote, the the majority vote would win by a landslide.
@JungleJargon The limits are established by the surrounding physical constants: You can't have a life form smaller than a cell because of mollecular limitations, and you can't have a life form bigger than an elephant (because of the force the earth gravity exerts). The flood never happened, so until you prove that you're just talking bullshit.
We are made of the most common elements in the universe. That speaks AGAINST creation, and FOR natural evolution. Again, go read a book.
@Murdulo You did not understand. A horse cannot be bred down to the sise of a rabbit and a rat cannot be bred to the size of a giraffe. The genome will not allow it.
Until you account for the origin of the sediment layers in the strata, you can never prove evolution.
What are the chances that almost all of the most common elements are working parts inside of life forms that we cannot live without? Even some of the ones that are not, are still compatible with life forms.
@JungleJargon Actually, the genetic lineage of us, coupled with comparative genome analysis, bone structure comparison and fossil evidence shows pretty clearly that we primates evolved from small marsupials. Seems you don't know shit about what genome allows and what not.
Sedimentation accounts for strata. It's a basic physical effect any student knows, and if built up among millions of years, causes strata.
"Chances"? Life evolved from non-life, not from a card shuffle. Go read a book, moron.
@Murdulo Nothing evolved from anything when you cannot account for where the sediment layers in the strata came from without being eroded away until after the layers of sediments were deposited.
It did not fall from the sky in neat uniform layers like pancakes everywhere around the world including Antarctica. Your belief is a fantasy that has no basis.
Life did not form without being ordered. The genome shuffle is not a card shuffle.
@JungleJargon Sedimentation did that, around millions of years. Different sediment composition (due to volcanic eruptions, bacteria metabolites, changes in atmosphere composition, etc.) causes strata to be distinguishable
Now you're taking about life formation. That's abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution. Stop jumping from one topic to the other, you already lost the previous one.
We already confirmed the building blocks of ARN form spontaneously by natural forces. So long!
@transtlantic You're using a functioning design as "evidence" of no design. Function itself requires having a Maker who ordered function. Uniform sediment layers are on every continent. You didn't account for the origin of uniform sediment layers.Fossil current ripples covering entire continents prove a global flood. Everything about us is a reshuffle. We keep parts of the shuffle that we do not use ourselves. External contaminations affect the reshuffle that damages correct information.
For future callers, you do not have to lie....
UHeardMe1stTime 5 days ago
Pascal never said you would be punished for not believing. The wager does say "it is better to have one and not need it than need one and not have one". Religions are the weapons of the afterlife, just like education.
ZuperDweeb 1 week ago
I don't think Matt qualifies for the 'slightly' overweight category either.
pompousprick 2 weeks ago
@pompousprick of course he does, but it has nothing to do with his views and beliefs
Madsweeps 1 week ago
Pascals wager fails the second you realize that there's more than one religion.
tgseason12 1 month ago 7
@tgseason12 and the fact that any all-knowing God would clearly see through an ingenuous selfish motive for belief.
0TheBestMan 4 days ago
@0TheBestMan
Yes of course!
tgseason12 4 days ago
lol win!
ClappingForChlamydia 1 month ago
who the hek is pascal wager?
witchcerridwen 2 months ago
@witchcerridwen
He was a philosopher. Look him up on Wiki. It has a pretty good bio of him.
Stryder46 2 months ago
As soon as it's brought up "conversation over" lol Par for the course. We're talking about the God of the Bible here, you know the one that said "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me." And in order to truly debunk it, wouldn't you technically have to die first?
OldUgly 2 months ago
@OldUgly that's simply memetic survivalism. if you were a king, would you want someone else to question your kinghood?
tubefu 3 weeks ago
It is arguable from a Biblical standpoint if we choose to have faith. It is arguable from a Providential and Compatibilist standpoint if we choose to have faith. But faith is not in "Having." Faith is "having," in "doing," which means whether or not we choose to believe, or choose to believe we can choose to believe, we can choose to follow without knowing if our beliefs are justified by theology. Thus, the gripe that we can not choose to believe is contentious, dear video poster.
chispakaty 2 months ago
Wow he is really arrogant.
gr33n65 3 months ago
@gr33n65 Who is "he" in this comment?
dasschleg 2 months ago
@gr33n65 Yeah, the caller is arrogant and retarded, I agree...
zalmanusa 2 months ago
There IS a Loch Ness monster. Believe or spend the Afterlife in a room next to the ice machine and elevators.
HyperSchmizzle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why wuld u be a atheist? if theres no god you dont lose anything if your an christian but if your a atheist and god exist you go to HELL forever! idiot atheists.
Herrkake 3 months ago
stupid conversation: Muslim to Christian : what if ur wrong? Christian to atheist: what if you're wrong? Jew to all: what if ur wrong? [future made-up religion] says you all are screwed and will be tortured forever after you die UNTIL you believe [future made-up religion].
georgecarlinisfunny 3 months ago
LET'S NOT FORGET THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE RELIGIONS HERE THAT PUNISH NON-BELIEVERS FOREVER (ISLAM and other made up religions of the future)
georgecarlinisfunny 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@georgecarlinisfunny
"LET'S NOT FORGET THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE RELIGIONS HERE THAT PUNISH NON-BELIEVERS FOREVER"
Curve ball:
- assuming there is a god who cares what you beleive, what basis do you have for determining he will reward belief (as opposed to punishing it)
types10000 3 months ago
One of the problems with Pascal's wager is that you do lose a lot if you buy into Christian theology. For one thing you totally stunt any spiritual growth since Christianity is a fear and shame based religion. But that argument would mean nothing to an atheist because he doesn't belief in spirit.
cunnidvd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
What are those people going about monsters and stuff , if you fail to understand that this universe was created by a higher power then you are the dumbest person in the entire universe! If you say that God is not real then you are telling me that this universe with its laws and stuff came by a chance , an accident ! Where is the logic behind it ? We are not talking about any monster at all but for the one who sent prophets throughout history , Moses, Jesus, Muhammed !
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@MrCobra811
"if you fail to understand that this universe was created by a higher power then you are the dumbest person in the entire universe"
If only you could provide demonstrable evidence for your assertion. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the existence of a deity.
'Chance' is not a fair representation for the existence of a the universe. There are very specific ways that particles can act with each other. The resulting universe is dictated by those specific actions.
pandstar 3 months ago
@pandstar Demonstrable evidence is the universe itself and everything that is around us ! "Chance " is not a fair represantation for the existence , really ? but if it is not a chance than someone made it , its one or the other , you don't have any other options ! So just because some particles act with each other that means there is no one behind it who is making those particles to act the way they do ? Just because you know the process doesn't mean that no one made that process work
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@MrCobra811
No. The universe is evidence that the universe exists. Evidence that a deity created it requires actual evidence of said deity.
"if it is not a chance than someone made it , its one or the other , you don't have any other options"
False dichotomy. There is another option. That the universe is the way it is because there is no other way it could have formed.
pandstar 3 months ago
@MrCobra811
"because some particles act with each other that means there is no one behind it who is making those particles to act the way they do"
True, there could be someone behind them making them act the way they do.
But that is an assertion that requires evidence. Just because they do act the way they do, doesn't mean that a deity is required.
Again, if you believe that a deity is required, provide demonstrable evidence for your claim.
pandstar 3 months ago
@pandstar That is an asertion that requires evidence , are you kidding me ? its like you have plenty of options and for this one you need some evidence for it ! What option is there other than someone made the universe can you tell me ? The other option is that the universe came to being by a mere chance cos it didn't plan to be here if it was planed then thats your God , either way it leads to someone creating it ! Did those particles planed before that we gonna become humans , did they ?
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@pandstar You are saying the universe wasn't a chance but nobody created it ! what kind of statement is that ? If I walk down the street and find some money , this is called a chance cos I didn't plan to find this money , a mere chance ! Universe was either created or was there by a chance , accident thats all ! You can come up with all kinds of arguments but you will have no other options ! Plus you have all the prophets which were sent from God to tell us that !
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@MrCobra811 Is it by chance that an object dropped will fall? Is it by chance that water held below 32 F will freeze? Is it by chance that light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum?
The universe exists because matter and energy behave according to certain patterns. It is not "chance," it is the inevitable outcome of the available matter, the forces of nature, and the laws of physics.
Also, there are a lot of "prophets" from a lot of different "gods." Which should we believe?
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 No is not a chance that an object falls something made that to fall , what made the universe to come into being ? Did the molecules and particles plan in advance that we are gonna be here ? If not than its called a chance ! By the way you are just explaining the process of how it could have been created , and just because you have a process doesn't mean that nobody made that process , A car has a process of how it works too but does that mean nobody made that process ?
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@MrCobra811 "No is not a chance that an object falls something made that to fall "
Yes. A natural force we call "gravity."
"If not than its called a chance !"
No, it isn't. It's called "nature."
"A car has a process of how it works too but does that mean nobody made that process ?"
A car cannot exist without someone's conscious interaction in the natural world. Planets, stars, the forces of nature, and the laws of physics and motion can.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 As for the prophets of different Gods its very easy to distinguish which one is fake and which one is true ! There are not many religions that say God is most powerful , he is not born or dies , he is not like any of his creation ,he knows everything , he is the lord of the Worlds ! Only one religion says those things , and that is Islam ! Christianity and Judaism are of the same branch but they have mixed the message of the prophets and corrupted it
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@MrCobra811 "There are not many religions that say God is most powerful , he is not born or dies , he is not like any of his creation ,he knows everything , he is the lord of the Worlds !"
None of this is proof - it is all claims for the properties that your preferred God possesses (Also, it's false to claim that no other religion outside the Abrahamic faiths claims these properties for its god(s).). Claims must be verified. What evidence can you present to substantiate these claims?
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCobra811
"There are not many religions that say God is most powerful...Only one religion says those things"
- your not very well educated on world religions are you? All-powerful is one of the most common attributes.
types10000 3 months ago
excellent
RzaChess 4 months ago
In the end, suffering will be your reward as you have not acknowledge God into your life. Many Christians who are poor, will go to heaven as you guy will suffer the difference.
patsaxon 4 months ago
Yay! someone tried to hit me with pascals wager at school today, thanks to me watching this video before hand, i was able to destroy their arguement.
witch26071 4 months ago 6
When you take you last breath...you'll know if you were right or not.
AcaiBliss 4 months ago
Don't believe in Cthulhu, he will eat you.
Believe in Cthulhu, he will eat you.
Never heard of Cthulhu?, he will still eat you.
You see we will all be eaten!
htomsirveaux42 5 months ago 59
@htomsirveaux42 "Don't believe in Cthulhu, he will eat you." it's pronounced "chew-chew"
eastjones 4 months ago in playlist More videos from qwints
@htomsirveaux42 Cthulhu loves you. Especially with tartar sauce.
419Films 2 months ago
@htomsirveaux42 love your explanation
drprasad79 1 month ago
Isn't it obvious to you atheists. God needs money.
tweekyseagull 5 months ago
yes but in christianity you cant become a christian out of fear of god!
pascals wager is BOLLOCKS!
GreenPlatypusBaby 5 months ago
Believe in the Loch Ness Monster or go to HELL
But the monster loves you... You send yourself to hell.
moonlightavenger 5 months ago in playlist A ver
So there are mutiple heavens and hells?
Tellinhowitis121 5 months ago
@Tellinhowitis121 Dependant on the religions and what you believe. I could believe that the Pastafarian Hell is the eternal washing of the great pan of sauces.
glitchuser4 5 months ago 2
@Tellinhowitis121 I believe that whatever religion you follow, that's the afterlife you will follow after death. So yeah, multiple heavens and hells. Maybe if you're an atheist, you get reincarnated or something. No one knows.
jrk987 5 months ago
@jrk987 Wow! You mean whatever you believe would turn out to be true? That's way too convenient, isn't it?
gupsphoo 5 months ago
Comment removed
jrk987 5 months ago
@gupsphoo haha sure why not? maybe it is that inconvenient? i saw this video about how this interviewer asking a muslim scholar "why do americans/foreigners allow us to build mosques in their countries since they believe in freedom of religion when we do not in our countries (idk what muslim country)" Anyway the muslim scholar said some stupid metaphor about how three people responded with three different answers to the question 2+2. The three people responded with 3, 4, and 5. Continued---->
jrk987 5 months ago
@gupsphoo He said that the individual who responded with "4" was correct, which represented Islam. 3 and 5 represented all the other "wrong" religions or Christianity, hinduism, scientology, etc. Honestly, who gives a shit; I try challenging teens my age (bible thumpers) about philosophy and the best thing they can do to prove God is bible verses. LMAO. Or how about little kids who r too young to understand. they've all been indoctrinated. Religion is retarded tbh.
jrk987 5 months ago 14
@Tellinhowitis121 Obviously other religions are going to have final resting places so yeah...Christianity isn't the only religion
camerondnls1 5 months ago
"there is a simple reason why the universe is complex, its called entropy"" I'm afraid you have confused this term. It's quite the contrary to what you propose. The Entropy principle state that all systems trend to disorder or randomness, and what we see in the universe is the contrary, this is why I said that the order of the universe and complexity of life can't be explained that way. Another wrong assumption you make is to say God is complex. Is light, energy or love complex? God isn't either
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx I understand it pefectly. When a cup falls on the floor it breaks, but a broken cup never reassembles itself into a whole cup. The unbroken cup is a closed system. Since the universe started out as a singularity, it was a closed a closed system, over periods of billions of years, entropy has caused it to become more and more complex. What we see in the Universe is not contrary... and all of those are complex. Thus the maker is more complex to have made them, its basic logic.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""entropy has caused it to become more and more complex"" I'm sorry, but is not like that, and your cup example is very good. The cup, when broken, is less complex, less organized than when it was in one piece, it broke randomly. That's my point and the meaning of the term. The universe now is more organized, not less, so what we see is contrary to the entropy principle. The current universe requires lots of energy to be created and maintained; it can't be produced spontaneously.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Once it was a single item, now it is many, just because we no longer have the use for it does not mean that it is physically less complex than it was in its unbroken form. Like you said the cup broke randomly (Now you are saying random events CAN happen?), each piece is unique, of varying size. No cup will ever break in the same way it did, and it cannot be put back together in the way it was. Organisation does not mean complexity. The Universe is not organised. Continued...
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""The Universe is not organised."" Have you ever blown something up? It randomly break in many pieces, and they all fall randomly. The universe is not random, galaxies are aligned in clusters, stars are aligned in galaxies, mostly in a spiral, planets are aligned in orbital equatorial planes to their respective stars, you don't see random polar orbits. What are the odds for all that alignment? What are the odds of random molecules forming a cellular structure? infinitesimal...
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx As you said, it is random. Organistaion is not randomness. Einstein expressed this idea with the phrase: 'God does not throw dice'. Since we can't predict many events, we can refer the universe as random.
We have observed the complete opposite of all those.
It happened twice on Earth - GFAJ-1 proves that. It also proved that our perception of where life can and cannot exist and under what condition was nonsense. Look up the Drake Equation, the probability of life is quite high.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger 'God does not throw dice' Einstein used that quote to negate quantum physics postulates, and in my opinion, Einstein was right. Quantum physicists can't explain many phenomena in this relatively new discipline, but eventually they will be explained, described and modeled, and we will know for sure if God plays dice or not. We can predict, model, or understand the causes of all macro events in the universe, the quantum events are the ones that are yet to be understood.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx We can't possibly know everything and we never will. Our species will go extinct before we have all the answers. That is definite.
'We can predict, model, or understand the causes of all macro events in the universe'? How could you possibly know that? There is no doubt that there are countless macro events that are yet to (and that never will) be discovered, & ones we will never comprehend.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""How could you possibly know that?"" I'll give you an example: we don't understand gravity, but we can predict it's effects; we can't predict a super nova, but we know it's causes; we don't understand the big bang, but we can model initial inflationary states. Of course something that has not been discovered or was recently discovered can't possibly be predicted, modeled, or understood; but with enough study, we get to them eventually. My point is that we have clues for the macro
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx That's not answering my question, you were implying that we know of all macro events in the Universe.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""you were implying that we know of all macro events in the Universe."" not even close, read the premise again, I said ""we can predict, model, or understand the causes of all macro events in the universe"" by "can" I mean that we have the capacity to do so for all macro phenomena, but not so for quantum events. I didn't said that we had predicted, modeled or understood those phenomena which is (I guess) what you imply by saying "we know". I guess you misunderstood my point.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx You don't understand do you? How do you know that there is another form of macro phenomena that will never be discovered? If it cant be discovered we don't have the capacity to even predict its effects since we wont know of its existance. You should not of simply said 'all' as that implies that we currently know of every macro event in the universe.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""If it cant be discovered we don't have the capacity to even predict its effects"" We are talking about the same thing, you aren't just getting my point or I haven't used the right words. We have the capacity, hence we "can" either model them, predict them or understand them once we discover them. I don't know how else explain it, sorry. For quantum phenomena, we need a breakthrough, or some type of instrumentation yet to be made to achieve that capacity.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Is English your first language?
We cant predict something if we are completely unaware of existance; that's my point. You originally said we can predict, understand, and model ALL (maybe you shouldn't have said all) macro events. That is complete nonsense. You have no way of knowing whether there are undiscovered macro events that we couldn't model, predict or understand even if we did discover them. That is my point.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaLolburger ""Is English your first language?"" No, I might have to use other words to convey what I mean, because it doesn't seem we are getting anywhere. For the third time, when I say "we can predict" I refer to the capacity, the potential, not that we have actually done it. I honestly don't know how else to explain it, so let's drop it.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx I am entirely open to the concept of an intelligent creator; I just don't believe that he thinks we are special and that he has created a paradise (or a nightmare) for us when we cease to live. Or that he is a he. Im not sure why I keep calling the 'intelligent creator' a 'he'.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""I just don't believe that he thinks we are special and that he has created a paradise (or a nightmare) for us when we cease to live"" To be honest with you, I don't either, but that doesn't contradict the basic dogmas, just the small details. Heaven in the presence of God, hell is the absence. I can explain in more detail later. There are my theologians that share that vision and are believers, so you atheism is towards certain detail of certain dogmas and different views are OK
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx A 'God' is a human fabrication, a very old one. An intelligent creator however is possible, yet none of the 'evidence' people have so far can even be considered evidence, the standard "hey look how complicated everything is, look at the stars and the moon and the trees, how can you say that was not created?" is just observing your surroundings and assuming intelligence was required to create it. It's a very common argument yet it proves nothing. It is just an assumption.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger God is the name we give to an intelligent creator, to a divine consciousness. Is a matter of semantics. A divine consciousness is an immaterial entity, a form of eternal energy, that directs the universe towards an environment suitable for the existence of other conscious beings. That is God, and is the same God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, or any other name we care to give Him. We fail in describing dogmas in our desire to understand Him.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Exactly, a divine conciousness. Key word; 'Divine'.
My concept of an intelligent creator and yours are totally different/
Your concept happens to be the kind I am totally opposed to, also why are you assuming that the creator has any gender at all? Dosen't that really show you that it is a human concept? How could you possibly know of its gender, whether 'it' is even an 'it'?
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""has any gender at all" He doesn't have any gender, but we have to describe Him someway. If we say "She", it would sound as a joke, and if we say "It", it will relegate Him to the same place of a "thing", so it would not be appropriate to refer to a supreme consciousness in that way. Why are you opposed to a concept of a divine consciousness and yet are willing to accept the concept of a creator? I don't get it. You mean aliens? If so, then who created the aliens? Is a non-answer
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx If 'he' dosen't have a Gender you would simply refer to the creator as the creator. She does not sound like a joke that is just absurd and sexist. Why would reffering to the creator as she rather than he be less of a joke? Cant you see how ridiculous your argument is?
Because a divine creator is a primitive human concept, and yours is based off that concept. Maybe, who knows? You certainly dont. LOL the same could be said about your God, that's hypocritical and contradictory.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""reffering to the creator as she rather than he be less of a joke?"" because the term "she" has already being used by atheists to mock and disrespect the belief in God, not because I'm sexist. Is all a matter of when, how and in what context the terms are used what makes them acceptable or sympathetic to be used under similar circumstances. ""Because a divine creator is a primitive human concept"" buoyant force is a primitive concept brought by Archimides, and we still believe it
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Im sorry but that is just ridiculous. I have never met a single atheist who belives that a she would be any more ridiculous than a he. I've never even heard of that happening. The concept of a gender itself is enough for Atheists. Making your god a Male rather than a Female makes no effect. There have been many female Gods yet we believe they are equally as imaginary as a male one. Buoyant force is provable which is why it is scientifically accepted. A God is not.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""GFAJ-1"" that's an excellent example of adaptation to a harsh environment. What that proves is the incredible flexibility existing life has to survive (almost supernatural ; ) ). What exactly do you think it proves instead? I believe there's life in other planets. It's illogical to think God created such a big universe for conscious beings to evolve just to make one species of them. Where religious arguments fail is when God image is seen as physical and not as consciousness
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx EVERY being we know of on this planet builds its DNA out of Phospherous, GFA J1 uses the usually poisonous element arsenic in place of phosphorus in it's DNA.
So it proves that life can exist in situations that we thought impossible, that elements we thought could never make up a life form actually can. This proves that the conditions we thought life HAD to have is completely incorrect so your argument that Earth is perfect for life and therefore intelligently created is nonsense.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger GFA-J1 doesn't substitute all phosphorus for arsenic, this is an existing (not new) bacterium that in the absence of phosphorus uses arsenic for some metabolic functions. Wiki quote: "experts who have evaluated the paper have concluded that the reported studies do not provide enough evidence to support the claims made by the authors". For an atheist, you have a lot of faith. ""life can exist in situations that we thought impossible"" true, but achaebacteria is a better example.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger "so your argument that Earth is perfect for life and therefore intelligently created is nonsense" when did I said that? You must me confusing me with someone else. I said that the order of the universe and the complexity of life points to a creator, and that's indeed the case. I also said I believe there is extraterrestrial life and that belief is logically compatible with the existence of a creator. I'm afraid you concentrate more in defending a position than in getting the point
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx The Universe is the totality of everything, including the earth, you are implying the Earth is 'organised' in a way that allows us to exist.
It's not the case. Complexity as I have already stated is a human concept and the Universe is far from ordered. You have no way of knowing whether our Universe is the most complicated out of them all, so stop acting like you do. Im afraid you are too busy with this circular and fundamentally flawed argument to notice the point has been made.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""the Universe is far from ordered"" why the milky way has all the stars arranged in a equatorial plane, resembling a hurricane, when they could be randomly arranged? why are the planets also arranged this way? the universe is pretty ordered, it may be even more ordered, but we don't know how the universe will be in a billion yrs, is a continuous process. We don't know if there are other universes. Again, more faith on your part ; ).
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx You do realise that the 'pattern' of each Galaxy is totally different and random right? Saying that because our galaxy could of looked different is proof of order or creation is absurd. I don't think you even realise how stupid what you just said is.
Planets arranged like what? We actually have a pretty good idea of how it will look.
What proof do you have that the Universe is ordered? So far its been all rubbish and assumptions. We have evidence for other Universes, so nice try.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""We have evidence for other Universes, so nice try."" No, we have mathematical calculations that suggest there might be, but they are based on certain assumptions, not in reality. In the real world there's only one universe.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
Comment removed
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger A quote from the same article: ""several groups have confirmed Pernose's finding while others have found no evidence for it."" "Cosmologists should have a decent data set to play with in a couple of years or so."" So, my brother, as I said, you're truly a person of faith.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx We have CMB evidence, which speaks for itself, other people have tried to replicate the conditions of the findings but couldn't thus why some could not find evidence, other could and that's why they found evidence. They have the CMB evidence, which is undeniable, you saw the image for yourself. The data set they gain will only expand upon existing knowledge. So, once again, it is not faith. Faith is in the absence of evidence. We have evidence. Yet again, nice try.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""They have the CMB evidence, which is undeniable"" First, if other experts are questioning it it is deniable by definition, second even if it eventually shows to be true, what is the conclusion? The data show bumps in the CMB, but the data didn't show where the those bumps came from, saying other universes caused them is like saying the lights I saw last week in the sky were aliens spaceships. You have more faith than theists.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx They are bubbles, and they fit exactly with external inflation. Earlier you were saying about how reliable we are in predicting, understanding even macro events and now all of a sudden you wish to deny this? The same basic concept instead we have tangible proof which fits exactly with a theory we already have?
That's a bad analogy, it fits perfectly with an existing theory and we can (and will in time) prove that these are what they appear to be. So again, how is it faith?
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger "They are bubbles, and they fit exactly with external inflation" yes, and the lights I saw fit exactly the description people give from alien spaceships, but that isn't evidence. It's funny that I'm the advocate for evidence in this argument, don't you think? That desire to believe in something is intrinsic to humans, that passion is why we say human are hot wired for God, the problem is that in the absence of God, we replace Him for something else: money, materialism, or CMB data
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Bubbles as observed in the CMB fits with external inflation, it is an conclusion based on evidence. Observing a light in the sky and assuming it is an alien spaceship is an assumption based on no evidence, simple.
We replace 'him' for reality.
You are giving your God human properties, basing your belief on religions you dismiss, and you believe you have a personal relationship and commute with the creator of the Universe. You are insane, there is no nice way to put it.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""You are insane, there is no nice way to put it"" you are judging based on a paradigm that rules you life, you can't see pass it. Tell me where is the logical flaw in my arguments, tell me why is impossible to communicate with an immaterial consciousness that exists inside each of us, tell me why is insane that an immaterial, powerful, supernatural entity created the universe, you are giving just bias appreciations, which are as worthless as your atheist religion.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx You say you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. With something that has absoloutely no tangible evidence to support the concept.
Look at this from my perspective; imagine if a grown man walked up to you and told you that he regularly communicated via telepathy with Santa Clause, and he was being serious. That is what you are saying is like to me. Except what you are saying is ten times more ridiculous. Spiritual nonsense and assumptions is all you offer.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""communicated via telepathy with Santa Clause"" is a very bad example, since no other person has claimed that; where as a communication with God has been claimed even previous to Biblical times by millions, so you got to give this argument the benefit of the doubt, if not, you're just being narrow minded.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx That was a pathetic attempt at trying to refute me point. It is what your argument sounds to me, whether is happened or not is irrelevant.
That is Argumentum ad populum. Numbers mean nothing. Just because alot of people even pre biblical (I dont see why you said that as if Biblical times meant anything) believe they communicate with a higher being does not make it true or go in your favour. Thousands of people believe aliens have vistied Earth, that dosen't make it so.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx You also replied to an old comment, I posted a newer version.
A child who lives in poverty did not make a wrong decision ,it is not their fault. Surely you must know that what you just said is nonsense?
Good for you, And I will continue to live a happy peaceful life without commiting myself to a fantasy. Now can we please cease this argument? It is circular, We are never going to reach an agreement.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""A child who lives in poverty did not make a wrong decision"" as I said: "most people suffer because of bad choices from them or people that have authority over them" the child suffering is not his own decision but the decision of corrupt governments, warlords, capitalists, religious fanatics and even sometimes their own parents, all of which have authority and influence over that child's life. We have enough resources in the world to feed everyone, so most suffering is man made.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx And yet not all of the African leaders are at fault either. They are in charge of very poor countries, albeit some leaders are corrupt, yet others simply cannot fix everything, and never will be able to. The parent suffer just as much as the children.
So again, it still stands.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger "They are in charge of very poor countries" Doesn't matter, if they have land, which they do in excess, there is no need for hunger. If you pass a law of the max acreage anyone can own and distribute the rest among the people and teach them to cultivate, hunger will be gone. If there are droughts, a well can be excavated for less of the cost of an AK-47. Kids carry AK-47 and villages don't have water, so, no, no excuses for governments and capitalists that just care for themselves
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Do you understand that money is required in order to do that? It costs money these days to do anything, running land in a place such as Africa is harder than doing so in a western country, drought is more common, famine is more common, loss of crops is more common etc etc. Im sorry but you have the worst understanding of why these things happen. It's pretty ignorant to assume the people bring it on themselves. Its typical of a believer to say such utter shit.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""Do you understand that money is required in order to do that?"" of course, as I said, it costs less to set-up a well than an AK-47 and even 10 yr olds have them, so money isn't the problem. Do you realize that a family of 4 can be maintained with an acre of land, water and hard work? I'm not talking about setting up a crop export industry, that would cost billions. You have to think out of the box, all problems have solutions if there is the will to solve them.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Ever heard of hyperinflation? Their currency is worthless. That is why they rely on outside help. Selling arms is a controlled business, AK-47's are in abundance thanks to the Cold war. For example, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the 80s (and got their asses kicked) they left behind a lot of munitions and weapons. That is why the Taliban have AK-47's and RPGs, they happen to be the cheapest, and sturdiest weapons around. Buying weapons isn't the only way to obtain them.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx No we have quite solid evidence.
wwwdottechnologyreviewdotcom/blog/arxiv/26132/
Bear in mind this article is dated, and we have since been able to back this up even more.
Observable evidence is the best kind of evidence.
Who are you to speak about reality when you believe you have a personal relationship with a supernatural being that created everything? Imagine you were being told by a grown man, that he believed in Santa and they often talked, what would you say?
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""the 'pattern' of each Galaxy is totally different and random right?"" I don't think you clearly understand the concept of randomness. Either something has a pattern or is random, something can't have a pattern and be random at the same time. Randomness is the absence of any patterns by definition. If stars distributions in galaxies were random you would see all galaxies in the form of Nebulae, like clouds, without any shape or form. Most undisturbed galaxies are spiral in form.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx I understand it perfectly.
Pattern = 'natural or chance marking, configuration, or design: patterns of frost on the window'. You said ours looked like a hurricane, no Galaxy we have ever observed looks the same, each has a unique look. Not pattern as in a recurring characteristic or trait. You dont understand the meaning of the word in the context. No galaxy looks the same and not all of them are spiral galaxies (we have a full understanding of why they are spiral, so look it up)
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx We were adament that we knew the six building blocks for DNA for life on Earth. That small (yet major) discovery has changed our understanding of the conditions in which life can arise. You can thank the media for the controversy as they mis reported it and hyped it up.
You have taken 'new' too literally. It simply means recently discovered.
How am I suppose to have an argument with you when your idea of research is Wikipedia?
Again, its not faith if there is evidence.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger "has changed our understanding of the conditions in which life can arise" read the story of the archaebacteria, that was really a game changer. I'm not in disagreement with you in the point that people underestimate life's potential, I just think this discovery has yet to prove it's relevance. It might be a huge thing, but it has to be confirmed independently yet. Regardless, neither this discovery nor the archaebacteria has any business in the debate of the existence of a creator
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx You are overlooking the fact here. GFA-J1 builds its DNA out of another element. Archaebacteria has the same DNA makeup that every other life form that we know of (barre GFAJ-1) has. The conditions in which life arise and life exist are different things.
Of course it does. Your own personal belief maybe not, as you are open to the concept of E.T life.
Also, Why do you believe the creator is divine? It proves your belief is based off a fabricated one.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""Why do you believe the creator is divine?"" is a matter of definition. Divine correspond or conforms to a deity, and the definition of a deity is: "recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers", so the fact that we respect, regard and worship this "creator" makes Him a deity, therefore is "divine". I don't get why are you so hanged in the semantics?
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Just becuase you have stripped religion down to just the God part does not make your belief any more credible. If your belief is based off religions in which you dismiss why do you believe in a God? A God is a primitive concept. So you believe in a divine creator as already stated, do you worship it? As you already said you don't believe it cares about you, so why worship it (assuming you do)? This is why im wrapped up in the semantics. Im trying to understand your beliefs.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""you don't believe it cares about you, so why worship it"" God cares, because he had answered my prayers. I worship Him not because someone told me to or because He demands it (which is not the case, that's a wrong interpretation if the first commandment) I worship God because once I understood He was real and once I received his grace, I was so grateful for the change in my life that out of gratitude I worship Him.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Haha, I rest my case.
You just proved that
a) you are a schizo, its funny how he chooses to ignore the prayers of billions of people who actually need him yet he talks to a guy who is fortunate enough to even own a computer
b) You base your faith off religions you dismiss
Millions of people with a different belief to you think God talks to them. Millions of people also say the voices in their head tell them to do bad things. This argument cant progress. I think youre insane, sorry
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger "he chooses to ignore the prayers of billions"" you're asking too much, how can I possibly know the reason of each and every prayer not answered? I can only talk for myself. You need to talk to a psychic, not a believer for that. ""the voices in their head tell them to do bad things"" I have never hear a voice in my head, that's not the way God communicates, at least not in my experience. God communicates through flashes, is like in a second, you understand and everything is clear
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx How many kids do you think who live in poverty pray for a family member to be saved, pray for god to give them grace or whatever crap you said happened to you.
Millions upon millions. Are they not legitimate enough reasons?
That is delusion.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""How many kids do you think who live in poverty pray for a family member to be saved"" Don't know, all I can tell you is that no one lives forever, so is irrelevant to pray for someone to be saved from death. If you live in grace, you don't fear death, you are prepared, so death becomes like a new stage in your life. I do pray for people not to suffer, for souls to be saved and for enlightenment and understanding among other things.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Irellevant? Your God put them into a life of suffering. Of course it is relevant.
Good intentions, pity you are talking to yourself.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""Your God put them into a life of suffering"" Not really, most people suffer because of bad choices from them or people that have authority over them. The exception would be accidents and diseases and the faith always helps and comforts you when that happens.
""you are talking to yourself"" if that were the case, the happiness, peace and transformation in my life and in my home is well worth it.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""Im trying to understand your beliefs"" I believe there is a creator, a first cause, a divine consciousness that started it all and is ever present in us. I received manifestations and revelations from Him. I don't believe all dogmas because God has revealed the truth to me, and some are just misinterpretations. If you want to understand my beliefs, ask me and I will give you all the answers. My answers must be based on reason and logic and not in "because God said so".
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx As Earth is only 'perfect' for life here. For alien life (and it is undeniable that there is alien life) our planet could be toxic. There is absoloutely no doubt whatsoever that alien life exists, and there is no doubt that intelligent beings (more intelligent than us) exist. The Universe is massive, and to believe we humans are special and created by an intelligent designer so until proven otherwise we should carry on believing we are God's favourite is ignorant at best.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger ""There is absoloutely no doubt whatsoever that alien life exists"" I do believe life exists in other planets, but is a belief based on logical assumptions. Now moving to the other side of the table for a moment, there is no evidence to support your argument. Is funny the conviction you use to defend that faith argument and yet you have no faith in the creator. Many scientists would question your argument and probably more atheists than what you think also would.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx It's based on evidence. It is based on things we observe, it is based on logic. Faith is required when there is no evidence. We know life exists, it's right here on Earth, we know of basic neccessitys for life, We have already identified hundreds of planets that are in the perfect place to harbour life, and we already know of planets/ moons with water which increases the chances of alien life drastically. The meteorite ALH84001 contains what appears to be fossilised nanobacteria.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
Pascal Wager is a way to get you interested. What if... Well you will never know if you don't experience it. I was a non-believer but I kept looking and one of the reasons I kept looking was this what if probability. Now believing is one thing, and living in grace is another. When you live in grace, when you are in God's wavelength, your life is transformed. You have to be in communion with God to be saved, believing is not enough. That's why you reject the pascal wager, you don't understand.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
Holy shit SeaOfDeaMs, all that work for nothing.
pimpymcdougall 6 months ago
@pimpymcdougall What do you mean or are referring to?
Sea0fDreaMs 6 months ago
more strawman arguments
our beliefs and chooses dictate or determine how we live
so saying it controls us is the same for every thing in this world that would change our process of thought or what we choose even slighty
itssaab 6 months ago
thoroughly owned.
slothtopsy 6 months ago
I agree with Matt on Pascal's Wager as a conversation stopper. I have two additional conversation stoppers: Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. They are, perhaps, the two weakest apologists in the Christian camp. You bring in Pascal, Strobel, or McDowell and I'm done. And if you want to claim victory, go ahead. If you are convinced by that nonsense, no facts that I could ever present will convince you otherwise.
Kailoa36 6 months ago 5
StrangerInAStrangeLand's Wager : I wager that an omnipotent, sane loving god could not cause or allow anyone to suffer for eternity. I wager that if there is a god who causes or allows anyone to suffer for eternity, it cannot be relied upon to be omnipotent, sane & loving & simply cannot be trusted. If it cannot be trusted, it doesn't matter what we do.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@Strangerinasland so what shall happen to evil and its followers, for evil and good are true byproducts of choice and if God removes choice then would that be good? Or is it that the eternal suffering is not his cause but ours and like our greatest society in earth we are justly punished and we all think it is fair, evil must be removed forever or choice must be removed
Sea0fDreaMs 6 months ago
If I see god, I will say "Lord Odin, please forgive me and all the billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and everyone else for getting it wrong."
greenjelly01 7 months ago
"Therefore, those to whom God has imparted religion by intuition are very fortunate and justly convinced. But to those who do not have it, we can give it only by reasoning, waiting for God to give them spiritual insight, without which faith is only human and useless for salvation."
cottonpicks 7 months ago
(part 2) For my part I tell you, ‘You would soon have faith, if you renounced pleasure.’ Now, it is for you to begin. If I could, I would give you faith. I cannot do so, nor therefore test the truth of what you say. But you can well renounce pleasure and test whether what I say is true."
cottonpicks 7 months ago
(Part 1) “‘(What if you are made so that you are unable to believe. What, then, should you do?)’
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason (the Wager) brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions.....
‘I would soon have renounced pleasure,’ say they (non-believers), ‘had I faith.’
cottonpicks 7 months ago
The decision of the atheist is wholly irrational. Of course, seeing the irrationality of your position should be enough to convince your intellect that you need to chose differently, but it does not mean that you have "your heart in the game" and that you actually believe. Pascal offers a remedy for this himself; which I will show in the following comment
cottonpicks 7 months ago
The Wager demonstrates that the Theist holds a more rational position than the Atheist. If we can not know the truth in the matter of the existence of God with conclusive proof, then it comes down to pragmatic belief to decide our course of action under a forced option. The atheist risk finite against infinite, 0 against 1 (no matter how many other ones there are, it's still an irrational decision to stick with 0).
cottonpicks 7 months ago
"Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only gave reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it." Pascal shows that reason is not a solid foundation for a worldview, because reason is "blown with a breath in every direction".
"The last proceeding of reason is to recognise that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it."
cottonpicks 7 months ago
This, is the most juvenile, babyish "rebuttal" to the Wager that I've so far come across on my dry search for an intelligent conversation over Pascal's Wager on youtube. I challenge just ONE of you, to read the whole Pensees and actually learn for yourself what Pascal has to say of the Wager, and the reasons he invokes it. Learn that Pascal NEVER mentioned hell in his Wager, learn that he NEVER meant the Wager to function as a proof, and then study the meaning of pragmatic arguments.
cottonpicks 7 months ago
This guys rebuttle was even better than Hitchens' in my opinion
ZenoKameno 7 months ago
There is only One Maker of the function that hydrogen has inside of us.
There is only One Maker of the Universe made of hydrogen and derivatives.
Only our Maker is able to remake us or do anything else for us.
Our Maker has also judged every nation that has ever existed according to their deeds.
Everyone is always judged according to their deeds.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon its called Life... nothing more
preragh 7 months ago
@preragh Working parts do not order themselves and they do not order themselves into existence.
The evidence of God is there, we just have to look at it.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon did god order itself into existance?
preragh 7 months ago
@JungleJargon Yes, actually they do. Atoms are the simple example of that, life is the most complex example of that to date. If everything is evidence for god, then nothing is evidence for god: You could just as well replace god with whatever supernatural entity you'd like and it would always be a tautology. Nonsense.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo Not so, the function that hydrogen has in life forms, as an essential nano part, means that its Maker has to be all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out time and space like the Bible says that God did, when He made everything there is.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon So the fact that a particle exists proves a supernatural entity created it? That's a terrible, terrible argument my deluded friend. You have absolutely no argument or evidence, so far, to assert atoms can only be created by a god. So you're only wishing it. That doesn't make it real, sorry.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo It is not just a particle. Hydrogen is a working nanomachine part and working machine parts do not make themselves. All lesser functions have a maker.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon Actually, they do make themselves: Evolution proves it. And no intelligence is required: Genetics prove that. Good argument, so far lol
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo No, the elements do not make themselves with any intent. They are made with the intent of making life forms because of the fact that they do work in life forms. You have not proved evolution happens. The variation of species is not general evolution and general evolution cannot be proven. You cannot use preexisting designs as evidence of no design. The fossils are evidence of the flood that happened 4400 years ago. The earth is 6000 years old because that is all we have evidence for.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon Oh well... I guess rational discussion ends here. So because atoms work in life forms that means they were meant for life? That's pretty stupid of you to assert, moreover given the ratio between matter used by life forms over the total sum of matter in the universe.
Macroevolution has been proven countless times. The fossils are evidence of bone structures being crushed by layers of rocks and under specific conditions. The flood never happened. The earth is older. Go read a book.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo There are limits placed on your macro (special) evolution. There is a limit to how big and how small an animal can get. Life forms are virtually unchanged since the time of the flood.
watch?v=fE8VO6z4tcg
Yes, hydrogen alone is the most common element and it is working inside of us. In fact most of the most common elements are used in life forms with only a few exceptions. If that was a vote, the the majority vote would win by a landslide.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon The limits are established by the surrounding physical constants: You can't have a life form smaller than a cell because of mollecular limitations, and you can't have a life form bigger than an elephant (because of the force the earth gravity exerts). The flood never happened, so until you prove that you're just talking bullshit.
We are made of the most common elements in the universe. That speaks AGAINST creation, and FOR natural evolution. Again, go read a book.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo You did not understand. A horse cannot be bred down to the sise of a rabbit and a rat cannot be bred to the size of a giraffe. The genome will not allow it.
Until you account for the origin of the sediment layers in the strata, you can never prove evolution.
What are the chances that almost all of the most common elements are working parts inside of life forms that we cannot live without? Even some of the ones that are not, are still compatible with life forms.
Function = Maker
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon Actually, the genetic lineage of us, coupled with comparative genome analysis, bone structure comparison and fossil evidence shows pretty clearly that we primates evolved from small marsupials. Seems you don't know shit about what genome allows and what not.
Sedimentation accounts for strata. It's a basic physical effect any student knows, and if built up among millions of years, causes strata.
"Chances"? Life evolved from non-life, not from a card shuffle. Go read a book, moron.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo Nothing evolved from anything when you cannot account for where the sediment layers in the strata came from without being eroded away until after the layers of sediments were deposited.
It did not fall from the sky in neat uniform layers like pancakes everywhere around the world including Antarctica. Your belief is a fantasy that has no basis.
Life did not form without being ordered. The genome shuffle is not a card shuffle.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon Sedimentation did that, around millions of years. Different sediment composition (due to volcanic eruptions, bacteria metabolites, changes in atmosphere composition, etc.) causes strata to be distinguishable
Now you're taking about life formation. That's abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution. Stop jumping from one topic to the other, you already lost the previous one.
We already confirmed the building blocks of ARN form spontaneously by natural forces. So long!
Murdulo 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
Why would i believe in your religious creationism when you can't explain AB resistance or plant speciation without using evolution theory?
erosion doesn't occur world wide, it's localized phenomena.
where's the uniform layer of salt? without that, there was no biblical flood, retard.
Genome changes randomly and increases in size or diminishes in size. that's not reshufle.
how is down syndrome a "shuffling"? lol
RETARD, you lose once again! LOLOL
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic You're using a functioning design as "evidence" of no design. Function itself requires having a Maker who ordered function. Uniform sediment layers are on every continent. You didn't account for the origin of uniform sediment layers.Fossil current ripples covering entire continents prove a global flood. Everything about us is a reshuffle. We keep parts of the shuffle that we do not use ourselves. External contaminations affect the reshuffle that damages correct information.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon There is no functioning design. there's a function without design. which is evidence for no design.
Functions in nature do not require a maker. as proven.
ALL continents do not share 100% uniform layers. why? because continents move.
ofc i accounted for the origin of sediments: the Planet.
"Fossil current"? that makes no sense.
"entire continents"? prove it. where's the evidence that supports your claims?
How is Down syndrome a "reshuffle"?
where's the external contamination?
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic You contradict yourself. Function is the result of design.
No one can prove function is not the result of design because all other functions are by design.
All continents do have hundreds of uniform consecutive layers stacked like pancakes.
You did not show me the (nonexistent) mountain where all of the sediments came from that formed all of the layers of sedimentts on every continent.
Fossil current ripples covering all the continents. Look it up.
The shuffle was damaged.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon you are bat crao crazy.
ofc i can prove function is not the result of design. because ALL functions in nature are without design.
ALL continents do not have uniform consecutive layers. the planet is geologically dynamic, see?
ofc i have shown you: the Planet Earth.
"fossil current ripples" = lie. sources?
Silent mutations PROOF that shuffle do not cause damage.
Down syndrome: not caused by shuffle.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic The functions in nature are higher functions than the lesser functions that have a known maker.
All of the mountain chains around the world consist of the uniform consecutive layers deposited by the flood.
You did not prove there are floating sediment that make neat layers without havine a flood.
You have to want to know about fossil current ripples to learn about them.
The shuffle does not cause damage because it is a of preexisting directives.
Down syndrome is a mistake.
JungleJargon 7 months ago