Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
G@G Community 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
How Do I Look? 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel & Leisure 
Trending & News +17
"Because the atheist sees evil in the world, he jumps to the conclusion..."
That's hardly the only reason not to believe there's a God, is it?
As for G. K. Chesterton, ignoring his misuse of the word "Evolutionist" (it says nothing about the time before life), it's still not unreasonable to posit that "everything" has always been around in some form, leading, say, to universes popping into existence, while not associating any intent to that process (which is what any God that anyone worships would be).
"No free will": firstly, what's the difference between a system that's so complex that nothing can possibly predict anything with complete accuracy (see chaos theory), and free will? Secondly, if God knows everything that's going to happen, you have the same problem.
"... if that is true, then your conclusion is no more valid than the opposite conclusion."
My car is red. It is the only possible conclusion from observing my car. The opposite conclusion, that it is not red, is not valid, why would it be?
By positing a God (any God) as the cause of the universe, you attribute intent to the cause of the universe. Why should that be? I have no intent to create methane gas in my body, but it's happening all the time.
"... if everything in the universe must have a beginning..."
If. (And I think you mean "cause".)
@goaded The problem, of course, that at the end of the day because there exists nothing but the material, it is merely an accident of molecular and biochemical interactions that made you say what you said. You did simply what the laws of physics and chemistry dictated that you must do.
To wit, all the points that you just made are no more logically valid than the counter-arguments. You are stuck in a hall of mirrors. You are merely a cog in the random mixing of atoms and that does not lend your conclusions any more or any less credibility then my own.
The further paradox being that you are left with your own act of faith. No different than that of the theist. Your logic is impeccable and is ultimately founded on the sandy soil of a problematic premise.
(As an aside, as regards chaos theory, it is the reductio ad absurdum of pseudo-science. In effect, because there is disorder you will randomly get order. Of course, why it should stop there is not quite clear. Why the order holds and it is not itself prone to disorder - indeed why time itself is not disordered. It goes on and on, describing everything and explaining nothing.)
Anyhow, it is sort of a problematic discussion as anything you will say in reply will simply be the product of your brain chemistry came together. There is no you, just the luck of the draw of physical laws which can't be laws since randomness precludes law.
You're misrepresenting chaos theory as much as you are Atheism.
It doesn't say "anything can happen", it says that undetectable differences in the starting state of a system will eventually result in different outcomes.
Anyway, isn't your conclusion that there is a God, and free will, and therefore, I'm not constrained by mere physics? In that case, shouldn't you think my logic based on solid ground?
If you were to come and look at my car, you would discover that it is, indeed, red. You, on the other hand, have nothing to point at to prove there is a God.
@goaded You misunderstand, I am constructing the argument on the basis of your premises, not mine to demonstrate the weakness in the argument. There is only the material, and nothing exists outside of the reality we can see..
Indeed, it seems kind of a silly discussion. After all, taking the assumption of the atheist as the strict materialist, you cannot say or think anything that biochemically that you were not destined to say anyhow.. There is no free will because there is nothing absent the laws of physics, chemistry and all the rest. Suffice to say, it is like arguing with an earthquake.
In that connection, your chaos theory explanation is merely saying what I did in a different way. The undetectable differences are as random as the results they produce. There is no order because nothing exists outside to impose order. Indeed, all you can really have is "undetectable differences" as the differences must themselves be the product of undetectable differences in a process of infinite regress.
The closer you get to the horizon, the further the horizon must fall back out of reach. As I say, a theory that describes everything and explains nothing,
Bottom line, the problem with atheism, as I noted, is that it makes the same mistake as the religious fanatic only going into the opposite direction. (As aside, puck up Robert Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers." You may find it interesting,.) The religious fundamentalist and the atheist are really only two sides of the same coin.
P. S. Sorry for the type-o's. I misplaced my glasses and was typing blind, so to speak. Just found'em now. I can see!! I can see!!!
OK, well, my position is that, yes, everything is material, but we have evolved an intelligence that is indistinguishable from free will, because it's impossible to determine what someone's thoughts will be.
That intelligence has developed science to avoid making mistakes. The premise that any statement of belief is as valid as any other falls down, because we have discovered that beliefs can be tested and that allows us to exclude things that are not true. Part of that involves eliminating hypotheses for which there is no evidence and no need.
Every attempt at a proof of God has failed, or is based on unwarranted assumptions.
"There is only the material, and nothing exists outside of the reality we can see", infer, detect or otherwise find evidence for. FTFY.
"There is no order because nothing exists outside to impose order."
Clearly, there is order, but it doesn't need an intelligence to impose it.
"... a theory that describes everything and explains nothing..." Except everything up to the horizon, and what we may see if we can lift ourselves a little higher.
"The religious fundamentalist and the atheist are really only two sides of the same coin."
I really don't think so. Believing something in the absence of evidence to the contrary is not the same as believing something despite evidence to the contrary.
"then logically something must stand outside the universe to start the universe itself"
"Similarly if all things existing must start, then something must exist outside of it to start it"
This very much applies to god, I find the "he just was" thing a bit "meh" just as the athiest perspective, i also find that adding god in the picture doesn't any more meaning to your life than that already is".
But I don't deny the exisit of a higher power and open to new ideas, good comment regardless.
@Tiiired "This very much applies to god, I find the "he just was" thing a bit "meh" just as the athiest perspective, i also find that adding god in the picture doesn't any more meaning to your life than that already is"."
This is also my perspective. There are a couple of flaws in the Ontological argument.
1. The assertion that everything that began must have had a cause (except God, fo no reason), and either
2a. The cause of the universe must have had intent (intelligence), or
2b. Whatever the cause was, no matter how much it differs from my religion's story, was God.
In recent research Scientists said that it would be short of impossible to create the universe in 6 or 7 days whatever it is. No creo
@goaded Unfortunately, I was away from this discussion and so lost the thread. That said, if there is nothing but the material than your intelligence is an illusion. Again, nothing more than the random meshing of certain molecular and biochemical reactions.
Indeed, such reactions must ultimately be episodic given the random nature of the universe. Bottom line, unless you can find your way out of that hall of mirrors, you really have no case. Your views were predetermined - a function of random natural processes with no act of will possible.
Anyhow, sorry I missed all this. It was a very interesting discussion.
@FreddieG Fallacy of the false alternative. Most strands of Christianity do NOT accept a literal reading of the Bible. Indeed, St. Augustine actually described evolution - though he did not give it that word - almost a thousand years before Darwin came along.
Anyhow, I was away and missed most of this conversation. My apologies but thanks for your comment.
Nerds with facts and research going at it. Impressed by your intelligence, & by the way your not an A. I. bot. Are you?
@FreddieG Ha! No, I am not an AI Bot, though nerd I may be. The funny part being that I am a nerd who is about as techno-phobic as they come. I still uses a flip-phone and I view my computer as a dangerous wild animal that crawled in through an open window and laid down on my desk, hissing and growling at me whenever I get near it.
Thanks again.
I find your argument, that "if there is nothing but the material than your intelligence is an illusion." is as ridiculous as saying life is an illusion, for the same reason. We're here, thinking about it.
"nothing more than the random meshing of certain molecular and biochemical reactions."
Yes, but very complex (and not random) meshing, that leads to (at least the illusion of) intelligence. You sound like the people who equate evolution with a whirlwind in a junk yard creating a 747 - that's just not how it works.
You've mentioned "will" a few times (free, and act of), but I don't see either how you would define it, or how it is necessary for intelligence or logical argument.
@goaded You may ridiculous, but you have a problem.
First, no, it is not like saying that life is an illusion. In fact, it is pointing out that in your definition, the immaterial does not exist and therefore there cannot be things like intelligence, love, God, etc.
Your reasoning is nothing but the product of a series of fortuitous molecular interactions - order from chaos neglecting that there is nothing to impose order. Think of it as chicken or the egg. Through your intelligence you impose and discern order, but it takes order for intelligence to exist. Suffice to say, you have a problem.
In effect, I take account the immaterial and therefore define life in its totality. You look at one aspect of life and conclude that the one aspect defined the whole.
As far as will, it is the ability to choose, independently and consciously, as an act sufficient in itself, between alternatives. The problem for you is that will cannot exist because there is nothing but molecules organizing randomly. Whatever you choose, you were the mere cipher of the biochemical interactions dictated by the laws - themselves problematic - of physics and chemistry.
P. S. Sorry for the opening type-o.
It should read: "You may SAY IT IS ridiculous, but you have a problem."
Sorry, kids are up and running around. I am a bit distracted.
P. S. Ugh! One other type-o:
This sentence: "Your reasoning is nothing but the product of a series of fortuitous molecular interactions - order from chaos neglecting that there is nothing to impose order."
Should read: "IN YOUR FORMULATION, your reasoning is nothing but the product of a series of fortuitous molecular interactions - order from chaos neglecting that there is nothing to impose order.."
Slow down there, Tex! Define intelligence, love and God, first, before you say I'm disproving them. (I think you're being slightly sneaky, putting God in there, instead of belief in a God, too.)
Any definition of intelligence that isn't somehow tuned specifically to do so, will not be unique to humans. The ability to learn, to communicate, to recognise yourself in a mirror, for example, are all shown to be part of other apes' makeup. Octopuses learn, bees learn and communicate, birds learn and use tools.
Love, and belief in God are feelings; they also have analogues in other creatures, they're just variations on feelings like attraction, fear, feeling safe, anxious, protected.
My reasoning is just that, reasoning, the mechanism by which it comes about is immaterial. Order does not need to be imposed from outside, it can evolve, given a few fortuitous self-replicating molecules. Intelligence isn't even unique to mammals or even vertebrates, octopuses are pretty smart, too (and our last common ancestor was some kind of simple worm-like creature).
"As far as will, it is the ability to choose, independently and consciously, as an act sufficient in itself, between alternatives. The problem for you is that will cannot exist because there is nothing but molecules organizing randomly. Whatever you choose, you were the mere cipher of the biochemical interactions dictated by the laws - themselves problematic - of physics and chemistry."
You do keep using that word: random. Make up your mind, is a brain completely deterministic, or does it have random aspects? It can't be both.
This is the 747 in a junk yard argument, again; brain structure and over half a century of experiences and learning have made particular responses and beliefs more likely than others (it's called my personality), I can make choices between possible alternatives, but I could no more will myself to believe my car is a banana than a cat could give birth to a snake. Life creates order (temporarily).
@goaded @goaded You are missing my point. If there is nothing but the material, then it love and such are merely biochemical processes. They have no reality distinct and of themselves but are merely manifestations of the laws of physics and chemistry.
There are no "feelings" as such. Merely molecules that happened to arrange themselves in a certain way. Ditto your will. You don't have will, you are merely the cipher for the way the molecules arranged themselves. Your will and emotions are not real as something independent, but are rather effects.
As to the problem with "random" and "deterministic," that is your problem and not mine. Order requires something to impose order on chaos. That would be intelligence. However, if there is nothing but the material then there cannot be intelligence - intelligence is not a material thing but is rather a manifestation of the rules of physics and chemistry. However, you cannot have rules of physics and chemistry if there is no intelligence to impose order. No intelligence means no order, but in a purely material world, no order means no intelligence.
To me, there is no problem. There is a thing that exists outside the material that is real and independent of the material and can impose order upon it. This I can then discern with my reason by observing how it manifests itself in the material world.
Bottom line, as noted, the conflict exists in your argument. Chaos is the spontaneous state of things and yet to have order requires rules which are precluded absent reason to impose order but such reason is not possible without order. Round and round it goes. (Chaos theory, as I noted, merely ends up in infinite regress. It explains nothing.)
1/2
Those biochemical processes are *how* we feel things; they're as real as, say, digestion and growing. My will and emotions are real, just not something independent. Can you will yourself to believe a car is a carrot? No, because your brain has developed to recognise reality, and your will is a function of your brain.
"Order requires something to impose order on chaos."
That would be life, self-replicating molecules.
"That would be intelligence."
Not necessarily, that's an assertion of yours that has no basis in fact. It's the foundation of the final few paragraphs of your response.
2/2
"However, if there is nothing but the material then there cannot be intelligence - intelligence is not a material thing but is rather a manifestation of the rules of physics and chemistry."
That sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Physics and chemistry are material, so is the brain that I'm using to have this conversation. You and I may differ on the level of intelligence demonstrated...
Also, you're avoiding defining your terms, like intelligence, love and God.
Here's wiktionary's appropriate definition of intelligence: "Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to comprehend and learn."
Have you seen those cute videos of squirrels solving puzzles to get to nuts? Or octopuses playing with a screw-top jar? Intelligence is everywhere.
"the conflict exists in your argument."
Matthew, chapter 7, verses 1 to 5.
"Chaos is the spontaneous state of things..."
Not really, matter attracts other matter into balls, some of them explode, etc... Some very basic things happen in particular ways. If they didn't interact in those ways, we wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean they were made to interact in those ways, just that if they didn't, we wouldn't be around to discover how they work. (See Douglas Adams' puddle analogy.)
"Chaos theory, as I noted, merely ends up in infinite regress. It explains nothing."
Neither does the idea that you need intelligence to produce intelligence! In fact, it's worse, because intelligence is much more complex than fundamental physical laws.
@goaded You keep missing the point. Why do those molecules self-replicate leading to those biochemical reactions leading to that capacity for reasoning. (Just because that capacity is "all over the place really proves nothing - or to the extent that it does, in a world where chaos would be the norm absent order, it actually proves my point.)
The problem is that everything you write has taken something for granted. For digestion to work consistently, certain biochemical processes must work consistently, and thence certain molecular processes to make the biochemical processes and thence certain atomic to make the molecular work and so on.
This requires order and consistency. Order and consistency requires something to be imposed on the chaos which is the spontaneous condition of things. Not only must this happen in one being, but it must happen in across the universe and over time.
That, to say no more, is a LOT of order born spontaneously from chaos. As I say, for everything you mentioned to work, you must take an awful lot for granted. It is not really, in the nth degree, logical. Hence my use of the Chesterton quote above.
As to defining the terms, I thought that I had at various points. You caught me on a holiday weekend with my three kids, so between that and the length of this discussion, I may have missed something. That said, given the space limits and such - 4,000/2,000 character limits - if I took the time to spell it all out, we would be well out of space. So to some degree I am left to assume your understanding.
Even then, though, that really does not change the essential problem in your argument. To wit, to be able to reason - and to make such reason autonomous, which is to say that it in some sense comes before, and is not dependent on, the biochemical processes that execute it - you still need some semblance of order. Some process of logic applied to a reality that has an inherent order to be discerned.
CONT.
If chaos is the norm, reason is impossible practically - there are no reliable rules to be observed - and in any case does not exist except as a manifestation of chemical processes that bear no real relationship to be what is being observed. Order, however, is not spontaneous but requires that reason to be imposed on chaos.
Hope that clarifies things.
I want the character counter back!
Here, as I understand it, are your basic axioms:
1. Chaos is the spontaneous condition of things
2. It takes intelligence to impose order on chaos
3. The intelligence imposing physical laws on the universe is God
Is that fair?
@goaded Had to laugh at your first line.
In answer to your question, yes, that basically states the matter. I would actually add points and clarifications - specifically at the above relates to a "scientific" analysis. (As I mentioned, the scientific- for lack of a better term - takes numerous things for granted.) However, overall, that sums up my thesis.
Hope that helps.
The one, massive, definition you missed out is: "God".
Anyway, going back to the axioms; why do you think those things are true?
The second and third presuppose the first; if the spontaneous condition of things is not chaos, then there's no need for an intelligence, which means there's no need for a God. (Even allowing for the second axiom to be true, which is debatable.)
We've got scientific explanations for how you get from lots of helium to galaxies, stars and planets; surely that's order coming from disorder, and no God required. What if that's just the way subatomic particles work?
I know it can be frustrating to ask "why" and get the answer "because that's the way it is", but it seems that our universe is constrained by a few universal constants, but the reason why they're so perfect for our development is simply because we couldn't develop anywhere else to ask the question.
@goaded Not sure I follow your last point, but your second to last point is the problem and makes my case. We can explain how helium conduces to stars and all the rest. We can explain even how that works.
What you cannot do is explain why it works. Why does not helium result in giant ducks floating in space. Silly illustration - intended to be humorous - but you see the point. Science says because it is it had to be.
However, in truth, it did not have to be. In chaos, the only thing that is assured is randomness. Randomness by definition means there is no predictability nor assured outcomes. Indeed, one time helium may lead to galaxies, the next time not.
There is an order in things. Certain outcomes can be seen and predicted because there is order. However, to repeat, order is not spontaneous and chaos is not chaos if it conduces to order.
So something must be there to impose order on the chaos. Moreover, that something must exist outside of the universe to act outside of it and thus structure it to produce order. We call that thing God.
(On this point - again for reasons of space - I will stop. Suffice to say, this line of reasoning leads to a prolonged discussion of what God is and His nature. Whole books have been written on this. I offer Augustine's and Aquinas' proofs of God, respectively. They have stood the test of time.)
As to your first point, that is a bit of an evasion. The last premise does indeed flow from the other two. That is how logic works. To negate the conclusion requires that you disprove one or both of the two preceding premises on which the conclusion is based.
My final point was simply that, in an environment that can't lead to intelligence, there will be no intelligence to wonder how (or why) it got there.
Similarly, the penultimate point was that if we lived in a universe of giant ducks, we wouldn't be around to ask why, unless we were giant intelligent ducks.
"one time helium may lead to galaxies, the next time not."
Yes (according to various multiverse theories), but in universes where intelligence doesn't arise, there's no-one wondering why - that's just in universes like our where it can happen.
"I offer Augustine's and Aquinas' proofs of God, respectively. They have stood the test of time."
Well, people still try to use them, but as far as I know, they don't prove that God worries about individuals, or that there are immortal souls, or that God intervenes in the physical world.
"The last premise does indeed flow from the other two. That is how logic works. To negate the conclusion requires that you disprove one or both of the two preceding premises on which the conclusion is based."
Yes, but aren't you asserting that the multiverse is chaotic, but this universe is not (because of God)? My contention is that, possibly, the multiverse is chaotic, but this universe is not because we couldn't have evolved in one that didn't obey the rules we observe.
Your hypothesis involves an unknown intelligence, mine involves merely chance. Occam's razor would favour mine.
@goaded The last point again is the problem. I chance leads to order, by chance it would only do so once. Not repetitively and consistently, day in and day out.
As to the multi-verse, we won't even go there other than to note that the existence of such suggests an even more complex structure that would not exist where chaos is the rule. Structures are complex and chaos is antithetical to structure.
This then making my point. There is an order in things and for there to be such order - not to mention an order so complex as to maintain a multitude of universes in which they all exist. Besides, if there is something outside the universe/universes, you end up further opening the door to God - a being that exists outside the universe (s) to order it/them.
As to God's nature, as I mentioned I won't go there for reasons of space. The proofs of God however suggest a being with purpose and this conduces to an explanation of His relationship to man. Suffice to say, I proffered Aquinas and Augustine as a suggestion in passing. We really don't have the space (or frankly I as a father of three, the time) to discuss that here and now.
Bottom line, my hypothesis suggests an unknown God but it is a God that is discernible and knowable and whose purposes it is possible to grasp. (Albeit that the finite can never fully grasp the infinite.)
Your answer is not. It is using the absence of knowledge to assert knowledge. That is, as I say, an answer that explains nothing - not even itself. Occam's razor assumes at least two answers - but you proffer no answer at all.
Order comes out of chaos. In your case, Occam's razor is that it does because it does because it does. In effect, the positing of the statement is assumed to be the answer. That does not work well.
Well, it's been fun, but I think I'm going to stop now. My final point is that Occam's Razor does work, remarkably well, as evidenced by the medium we're using to discuss it. Good night!
For example, my grandma was in the hospital with the doctor saying there's no way to treat her and that she'll die. But then to this day, she's healthy and walking pretty fine.
Maybe because in the Bible there were prophecies that came true, especially the ones from Daniel. Also the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah were discovered in recent years.
@Ranude2011 Daniel prophecied that Persia and Greece would become the next world powers after Babylon fell. And guess? They did.
You can't build a case based upon other things. There is just 1 God. The others are idols. All cases must be made on an individual basis.
Wusses use that because they can't build their case. Destroying other cases does nothing to destroy mine and even if you destroyed mine, it doesn't build yours. You must build your own case against God, not simply destroy other cases.
All people know God exists. They deny it because they are influenced by Satan.
Proven that these other Gods don't exist. Doesn't your own bible say they do? Thoust is the highest among the gods. Thou shalt worship no other god. Both proven that Christians believe in other gods
@ManOnFire So where are Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you know how recently they were found? And whoever found them, how do they know it's them? Do you know anything else about it?
@purplepoppy
The lowercase gods are idols. They are gods, not Gods. The lowercase gods is an idol.
Money and fame is some people's god, meaning idolatry.
So what of the roman, greek, Egyptian, Celtic, indian, norse Gods. Why do they not exist but yours does
Never said mine does. Mine can't be disproven. Theirs can. Theirs also have no salvation power.
@Holy_Ghost_Fire That was exactly going to be my answer.
@CuriousChick101 There are some articles about the remains of an ancient city or town somewhere around Jordan that archaelogists excavated and noticed that the way this place was scorched was not from just any kind of fire but from something like the brimstone and sulphur that is described in the Bible as burning the place up.
@purplepoppy Those gods don't exist because they are ritualistic and they always changed. Men of those nations created those gods and all their details and rituals. God exists because he always has and because he said that he is the God who changes not. He is THE only God yesterday, today, and forever. No other gods describe themselves as such, and some of them are depicted as still having flaws like humans. God isn't.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!I totally agree with you buddy. The same with Religion. I respect them all just don't let anyone fill your head with false prophets or just more here say. The church made up heaven and hell to intimidate and control weak minded people through religious beliefs.
@FreddieG
True. It's surprising how well it works. A guy I was talking to attributes it children's tendency to have invisible playmates. He thinks whatever is wrong with kids that makes them do that, is the same thing that lets theists believe in invisible sky daddies.
On one hand I understand god creating everything making more sense than cosmic explosion, but on the other hand don't they run into the same issue.
Example
Where did this cosmic explosion come from and/or where did this higher being (god) come from?
To me they both seem illexplained, or as if they can't be explained. Or I could just be ignorant?
@Tiiired The mystery of where God came from long before us is a puzzle, yes. But it's not even the most important thing or the thing that matters. What does matter is that he is here and he did create us with a thinking, feeling, intelligent mind. Again, that is more realistic and sensible than believing in dead cosmic objects blowing up into each other to make life.
Understandable but we still have to ask why he is here and so forth, to me these questions are just as important as each other.
Also what matters is not the dead cosmic objects owing it's that they just blew up and we are here more realistic than believing in a entity "just exist" from absolutely nowhere just to create us? for what reason (not that we apprently need one to exist)?
@Tiiired There are so many questions that we could ask: why are WE here? Why are we human beings and not something else? Who or what created God? Why an endless black universe and not something else?
Those questions will just drive us nuts and we don't really need to know the answers. Sometimes the answer is actually more frightening than the question, and we wish we never asked.
The difference between God creating us and cosmic mythology is that God had/has a reason. Cosmic objects blowing up together to make life has no purpose, it's just "by coincidence."
If you don't like the questions that are being asked go to another website. You're a fucking 40 year old that sits around all day and asks questions and comments on shit on Girls Ask Guys. You're a loser. Prolly divorced too. Now who's the dumb cunt you bitch
Its still you.
Raging at me doesn't change the fact that there is literally not a single piece of evidence to support the claim that god exists.
I get that you dont like being wrong, but you are wrong so shut your stupid cunt mouth and fuck off you dumb cunt.
I'm not wrong, I told you that I dont believe in God countless times now. You're telling me to fuck off while your bitch ass commented on MY question. You won't do shit. You're a pussy. That's why your account is private. Bet all your questions are about relationships because you can't get a girl you 40 year old loser
So Im a dumb cunt for telling you something that you know in fact agree with...
maybe you should keep your training wheels on or you are going to hurt yourself.
Thats a puddle conclusion. Imagen there is a road of dirt. It starts raining and a puddle forms. When it stops raining the puddle thinks to itself, wow look how perfect I fit in this hole, this has to have been made for me.
Our complicated bodies can be explained by a very well proven evolution theory. Where due to constant adapting, simple creatures get more and more complex. This shamefuly isn't always thaught in religious schools.
Don't worry, believe in anything you want, idm, I just tried to awnser your questions. ^
@Swat_ Thanks for your answer man I appreciate, I am a man of science too tbh. I mean I search god connected with science you know, ofcourse I believe in evolution too I don't believe Adam and Eve but as I said big miracles happening by chance doesn't come realistic to me. Ofcourse should do more researches
No it doesn't. God could be preparing a harsher penalty for your blasphemy and you wouldn't know it.
Saying that doesn't mean it is true. Disprove God exists then. If not, you can't say He doesn't.
What I said before is the same thing you just said to me. U can't disprove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist in the first place
And you can't know 100% that God doesn't exist.
A wise person knows the unicorn vs God claim is not on equal footing. We don't have unicorn debates but we do have God debates and for good reasons. We have stronger evidences that God exists than not exist
It is equal because they are both fairy tales. But then again if your saying that because unicorns is a childish comparison, then disprove that the Greek gods exist, like thor
No. I'm not stooping down to your level who uses the flesh to determine things. I use the Holy Ghost to determine things and we will never see eye to eye because the people of the flesh war with the people of the spirit. You truly think you are right no matter what because you use the flesh to decide it when the flesh deceives. You truly think you are right but you are wrong.
I just want to ask, why do you believe that sugary drinks is bad for you? I'd like to know your answer
@Games_ I'm saying that because that's mainly the answer of everyone who believes in God without saying it. They can all give their subjective reasons but what they're really saying is they just believe by choice.
I see. I still can't accept a god exist after doing so much research. I'm gonna need tons of proof
@Games_ Because they're ponies not God. There's a big difference and that's the worst comparison ever
No there is no difference lol. God, Ponies, Easter Bunny, Santa are the same shit. Disprove they all exist.
how ever I have a different belief about God. If you're saying you don't, can you prove it's absence? You can say by choice it's fine but proving me wrong
@Games_ "God, Ponies" Except how they spell. Lets say a pussy and a dick. They're both the same because they exist? That's the worst strawman fallacy ever
@Games_ Did I say I believe in pones and Easter bunnies? No. I'm saying I believe in God. You're just strawmanning. Kinda like hypocrites saying "You don't believe in God? You shouldn't exist" <-- and I'm not like that. So tell me why do you care if I believe in God? I'm a Deist FYI so what's the problem with that?
@Games_ And Im well aware I exist in my life so? I don't care if you don't see god. You're still opinionated
I know you exist irl because I know only a human can type and make an acc here. No proof of god. If u show me the littlest of proof of god, I'll literally leave this thread rn
@Games_ "If there's no God then there's no universe but we can all agree to disagree." So I don't have to give you proof. What part if "by choice" do you not understand? It's your choice not to believe
@Games_ So you only came to my comment to prove me wrong? Well I don't think you're right at all. You can't change anyone's point of view. That's still your opinion. The universe exist for a reason and no one knows how it started so here's my opinion. God exist. In your OPINION he don't.
Exist cuz the big bang or some other causes we aren't sure about. Definitely not a god doe, that's for sure. If it is a god it can't be the christain god at all
@Games_ Also we all are entitled to what we believe as long as we don't bash on anyone like what you're doing. " we can all agree to disagree"
@Games_ "cuz the big bang or some other causes we aren't sure about" <-- See? You aren't even sure about that.
People comment every time on things they believe on and they always get bashed on it regardless. It's only when u talking about god everyone says "everyone is entitled to believe just respect my opinion"
We aren't sure of the big bang but it's more credible than god. The big bang actually has proof. Such as the doppler effect and how sound waves expand, showing the universe is constantly expanding. I doubt a random person online is more credible than verified scientific research
@Games_ I love how they use "hypocritical" as an excuse. Did that really bother you? Well guess what? I didn't ask for your opinion.
@Games_ "We aren't sure of the big bang but it's more credible than god." Ok that's your opinion however I have a different one.
That's actually not a opinion. The big bang entirely has more proof than god has and gods been around longer
@Games_ Ok that's your fact. I know the big bang theory happened but we can all make stories on what started it.
Why do u think they teach evolution and the big bang in school. If your in New York and take the earth science regents, putting god as an answer to the creator of the universe deducts test points
@Games_ We can all claim our theories are facts and infact, no one was there to exactly witness that one. This isn't a competition of who has a better theory. You have yours, i have mine and that's how we mature people deal with things.
@Games_ "Why do u think they teach evolution and the big bang in school." <-- because that happened. I believe that happened. But the cause of it? No one can trace.
I already said nobody knows what happened exactly, but the big bang makes more sense than god and has proof to back it up. Wheres the proof about god? I hope your not gonna tell me to read a book of contradictions
@Games_ Believing in the big bang theory doesn't automatically mean I don't believe in god. Are you just assuming that anyone who believes in God have thesame religion? Thesame way of how they believe in God? Do you not know what Deism means?
Id say he made the big bang theory, he made the apes, science or etc but he left us. Just like this guy making an ecosphere in a jar leaving them alone untill they grow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG5jyRGhLg
@Games_ Oh and about speaking your mind in your last question? Like what I said, no one asked for your opinion
They dont realize they have been brainwashed and if u try telling em they go and make tons of excuses for why god must exist. What do they all have in common? 0 proof
@Games_ anyone who claims their opinions are facts are ignorant about how people have different point of views.
@Games_ Just like you making excuses why god don't exist and calling them BS? Why don't you mind your own business
@Games_ It's kinda like you came here to my comment just to be butthurt just because I believe in God.
I ain't butt hurt, just had to ask what you meant, cuz what you initially said was mad dumb
@Games_ so you have a problem with people who believes god saved them? Because I don't because I'm not the butthurt one about them. I'm happy that they're happy about it. It's no one's fault you're salty about your life that you only wanna look for drama.
@Games_ Yes I gave you an answer so what's the problem with that? If that doesn't answer you then take it or leave it.
My lifes good without god man. I don't know about you. Still can't eat pork, have sex, or do anything you want lol
@Games_ Assuming I'm a Muslim? "My lifes good without god man" <-- if that were true then you wouldn't start comparing your opinion with others.
"Still can't eat pork, have sex, or do anything you want lol" <-- Ad hominems. AKA Assumptions used to attack someone for hurting their pride.
The bible prohibits pork eating and sex before marriage. It's funny how I dont believe in god but know more about your religion than you do
@Games_ "your religion" Do you even know what's my religion? by the way that only proves you're only studying the bible just to discriminate them. how sad.
@Games_ And did I say I don't believe in science? Read again before you start strawmanning again
How can you believe in science and god at the same time. As soon as I looked up evolution and big bang theory I instantly dropped god lol. Any smart person would know putting god in the mix of science makes no actual sense
@Games_ Easy. In my opinion, god made science. In your opinion, he don't exist. Easy and this is like clock work really. Desperately trying to change my point of view
@Games_ The real question is why do you care so much about my opinion and claim you're not butthurt?
@Games_ Sure I could say that. He made science that disproves him. However he still made people who believes he exist.
So he wants everyone to believe but makes stuff in the universe to disprove him. This god is dumb as fuck man. I'm smarter than him
@Games_ "So he wants everyone to believe" <-- Well I don't think he does. Again strawmanning.
Oh deism, that's more credible than the christain god, I still dont know if there's much proof for it doe
@Games_ That's what I said but you were so busy being butthurt about theists. I don't even have a problem with them
"What the hell is a deist? I've never heard of that shit" That's why do your research before you start losing your cool
Because I actually never heard of it in my life. Like this is the first time I heard this.
@Games_ But you know that's still not a reason to be butthurt over theists. I'm not exactly supporting them because they can also discriminate atheists but any form of discrimination is not an excuse
@nonideal If that’s what you think, but I don’t see a reason suggesting any sort of god exist.
Most Helpful Guys