Do you really believe that life created itself without a God ?

[Light_beam]

Updates

+1 y

Oh my God, are there any believers left in the west?

[ohsheeT]

Well if we're honest with ourselves we only know what we know.

We can believe in a lot of things but do we know them.

I've never read the Bible before but I do have faith we're too perfect there's too many beautiful things on this planet did everything is linked together but we only know what we know if we're honest with ourselves.


https://youtu. be/_TyZvqtIIGs? si=3cHaP8nT38xk5_go

https://youtu. be/jMtt8Wvm1NM? si=yujRkDIc8xjEhWhq

https://youtu. be/vsTFmvgWVNw? si=rnJ2AUe3R1kqMFQ2

[ohsheeT]

https://youtu.be/vsTFmvgWVNw?si=2E9eNleuC01GzQMZ

[ohsheeT]

https://youtu.be/_TyZvqtIIGs?si=TcOy9gAVsgE0OpxK

[ohsheeT]

https://youtu.be/_TyZvqtIIGs?si=JKp6XDQscKTCv-aZ

[SixFootSexy]

"Mind" is the best explanation of how we got here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/esgbCRyX9wk

The universe had a beginning. So there must have been a causation. The fact we have a mind to reason this is itself a miracle. The multiverse hypothesis essentially makes everything meaningless.

[OfDeath]

God of the gaps argument. Unsupported fantasy when it comes down to it.

[SixFootSexy]

@OfDeath Math and the universe may as well be an "unsupported fantasy" but it is what we know as reality. It could all just be a simulation.

[OfDeath]

No, there is a difference between what can be tested and unsupported fantasy. False equivalence.

As for the simulation, that is also unsupported. Perhaps more realistic than the supernatural but still unsupported.

[SixFootSexy]

@OfDeath Why do we assign meaning to things we can't see, like numbers, music or love? Apophenia?

[OfDeath]

Why do you ask? Seems like a tangential question of no consequence.

All I could add is that music can actually be seen with the aid of a medium for the sound waves to move and it can be heard anyway. We know how that works. Numbers and all of mathematics is a tool used to count something without needing the physical representation of what is being counted. It can be used to account for real activity or to count things which don’t even exist, no different to language in that sense. Love is resultant of chemical and neurological activity in our central nervous system and brains. Any “meaning” assigned to these in the sense of why rather than how is subjective and has no measurable relevance outside of that subjectivity.

[SixFootSexy]

@OfDeath Those are all subjective viewpoints. All plants have vibrational frequencies that can make music via a tool like PlantWave. Between every number is an infinity of infinite numbers. Our ignorance is infinite and our understanding is myopic; our collective understanding of the universe is like a single tardigrade trying to comprehend the scope of earth, at best.

[OfDeath]

I don’t disagree with anything in that last part.

But what exactly are you trying to say?

[SixFootSexy]

@OfDeath That there is not a rational materialist argument for consciousness to exist outside of a miracle, full stop. If there was, we'd be able to replicate it in a lab.

[OfDeath]

There’s not a rational materialist argument for consciousness to exist according to who? According to you?

And you think it being a miracle is a rational argument? When has the answer to any scientific question ever been “it’s a miracle”?

How about the fact one can be rendered not conscious by affecting parts of the anatomy like the brain? Doesn’t that hint that there is a material source for consciousness? It should be pretty obvious that it does. Just because something can’t be replicated in a lab doesn’t mean it can’t be ever explained and we should just throw up our hands and say “well it must be a miracle”. Galaxy formation can’t be replicated in a lab either but we know how that works. A hurricane also can’t be replicated in a lab but we know what’s happening. Not to say we know what is happening exactly with consciousness yet but we should at least endeavour to work on it and aim to find the answer as technology improves.

[ApplePie409]

The crocuses come up first.

The daffodils come up later.

The tulips are last.

Only a "Big Bang Theory" can explain this. LMAO

[Light_beam]

I have no idea what you are talking about 😀

[laly520]

nope

[Light_beam]

So what do you believe in?

[laly520]

in God

[Light_beam]

Christian, catholic?

[laly520]

catholic
yes

[Light_beam]

So you don't have sex without marriage?

[laly520]

yes
I am waiting for marriage

[Light_beam]

what ! are you still a virgin ! seriously?

[laly520]

yes I am still a virgin

[Light_beam]

wow ! surprised !!

[Messiah89]

I have actually studied this for some time, an my conclusion is we were created to be slaves of another race, we are like ants on a ant farm we have pecking orders an such, we work for a small group of individuals an if God was real they would know an fear him for the injustice, but I think life creator is more complex than what religion teaches us after all why would we have the keys to free ourselves in a book that can be bought. I think the truth is hidden an I have studied every religion an been apart of three muslim, Christianity an catholic. But it just my opinion

[OfDeath]

Maybe you should have been studying grammar and punctuation instead.

[andreasderjuengere]

I ''believe'' that presently 'we' do not know all the facts to have an informed opinion.

Anyhow, the bit of the universe that I have seen looks very 'organized' to me, and complex as well.

Using Math (science) to calculate the probability (likeliness) of the world's setup and development, I sense that there is some kind of plan behind it to have it made happen.

This plan, and God, could be one and the same.

If that God is identical with the descriptions of those who claim to know it, is highly debatable, though.

[OfDeath]

God of the gaps

[strateguy632]

not exactly. first the "scientists" assume baselessly no god and bible false.

then they say "if the odds are impossible, we will add time for more tries" then they invent geology.

after they assume no god, the only other option is it happened by itself without god.

like "rain can't be from clouds, therefore it must be coincidence".

[slatyb]

God is just another way to say "I don't know." And we don't. There's no evidence for a creator, no evidence for an afterlife, no evidence that prayer or any other religious practice is more effective than doing nothing. I don't "believe". All I can say is that there's no evidence for God.

[IslaTheWitch]

of course, everything shows that we exist without God pretty well

[Light_beam]

heey, you are back answering my questions, kinda of missed you :D
so how? how do we started to exist?

[IslaTheWitch]

coincidences, as anything else in the universe

[Light_beam]

Wow, the level of sophistication of the universe and living beings makes it super impossible to happen by coincidence! Put copper, iron, plastic and silicon together a million years, would it result in a fine computer with software and all?

[IslaTheWitch]

Of course it is possible. It's how it happened in lab when scientists repeated that process to confirm the theory

[Light_beam]

No way.. not even remotely possible.. heey a question.. should i keep being angry with you?

[OfDeath]

I wouldn’t use those terms. To say something created itself could be misconstrued as intent.

I would say I believe it is more likely that life began as a result of the natural processes of physics and chemistry rather than by the deliberate design of an imaginary being like God.

[Light_beam]

who created physics and chemistry

[OfDeath]

To ask “who created” something which isn’t known to have been or could be invented or as you put it “created” invokes the anthropomorphic fallacy (attributing a human like intentionality to an object, animal or aspect of nature such as chemical and physical reactions) It’s also a question loaded with a false or unsupported assumption.

But I’ll engage a little better than that for you. You seem to ask that as if the answer should obviously be “God did it”. That is a god of the gaps argument and an abnegation of the intellect since it is a blatant forfeiture of inquiry and a puerile invocation of fantasy to try and explain away something unknown. A non explanation in other words. The truth is humans are yet to discover such natural fundamentals. Instead of sweeping such questions under the rug with non explanations such as “god did it” we should take the courage to embark on finding out the real answer. It would seem intuitive to assume something must be fundamental at the bottom of it all but we don’t even know that much. The larger questions remain mystery.

[Sirenboobzilla]

Yes. Through 3.7 billion years of evolution that all began with the luck of there being just the right conditions and chemicals for it to work

[Light_beam]

Umm, so putting copper, iron, plastic and silicon together for 3.7 million years will result in a fine super amazing computer :D

[Sirenboobzilla]

Odd statement considering polystyrene wasn't discovered until the 1839 and true plastic not invented until 1907.

[Light_beam]

not the point though

[Sirenboobzilla]

No indeed. The point is that this question seems to solely exist so you can ridicule those who believe in evolution instead of creation. Twice so far you've used the same response involving plastic and evolution. Please use fact when trying to make a point.

[Light_beam]

It is a valid example.. It applies to biological examples .. I have studied medicine ! human body, can you imagine how sophisticated the human body is? even the single cell? it would take me days to explain it.. I can't ever remotely imagine this just happened by coincidence.. not over a billion years would make something that sophisticated ! coincidence doesn't create this enormous balanced echo system.. but again you wanna adopt evolution.. go on

[Sirenboobzilla]

If you studied medicine, then you know how viruses mutate and evolve when going from host to host overtime rendering some harder to kill thus forcing medicine to advance

[Light_beam]

i know that, yea living creatures interact and change.. but that doesn't mean it just created itself

[Sirenboobzilla]

Doesn't mean they were created either.

[Light_beam]

It is all about evidence.. If you see the evidence there is a God then you believe , if you don't see it then you don't believe.. no one can see God.. that is the whole point of it..

[Sirenboobzilla]

If no one can see him then there is no evidence. Blind faith is worthless to me. Countless before and after us have had and will have this attunement.

[Light_beam]

You can't see air, but air exists.. even in space , they know that a new planet exists by the evidence of its gravity, without seeing it.. It is all about if you accept the fact that life is just a test.. God created humans and gave them brains and minds.. now it is on the human to use his mind to find out there is a god or not.. also God sent messangers to help.. so if you used your mind correctly and find out there is god , you get rewarded with paradise.. but if you be arrogant and keep denying evidences.. then you get punished.. Is this idea so simple and shallow to you? May be.. after all this advance in sciences , you are looking for a more sophisticated explanation.. but yet you come out with a shallower one.. coincidence ! Look at and think about everything around you.. and ask yourself all of this was made by coincidence?

[Sirenboobzilla]

We can indeed see air. The gasses that make the air around us reflects light in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums, both of which we did not evolve to see lest we live with hazy vision our entire lives constantly changing when the air moves. But if you put enough of that air together with visible light, you get something you see every single day... a light blue color that we should all be familiar with unless you live under a rock.

I learned that in science class. It did not feel shallow.

[Light_beam]

well, to each their own !

[Miristheiss]

Know, not at all.

I believe all exists because God created it. Everything that is came from somewhere.

[Sevenpointfive]

no. there's certainly a creator. i can't fathom the ideas of where that goes. it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

[juliammm]

There is nothing to believe in, evolution is a science-proven fact.

God is about believing because there is no proof.

[Light_beam]

you are the proof my dear..

[Taniisokay]

People often say that parents are the ones who create their children. Then why is it that parents cannot bring their children back to life after losing them?

[DrPepper12]

Is this question in jest or real?

[Taniisokay]

@DrPepper12 both

[DrPepper12]

I see what you did there!! 😉

[shoeboxcerealcard]

Study Thomas Troward Edinburgh lectures. You'll find your answer in there. It's a heavy book though. @Light_beam

[Light_beam]

Seems like a huge big study that talks too much and then concludes that there is no God..

[DrPepper12]

Spoiler alert: there is no God

[jshm2]

No. Hence why we can tell what has life, and none.

The godless are just living, but they have no life in them. Hence are slaves to doubt and cynicism.

[AviatorTom]

There's nothing to say that a god didn't create the primordial sea, in which science theorizes that life was created

[Pohjolan]

Seems like it. Human biology has plenty of flaws that intelligent design should have avoided.

Like we could do without the ability to accidentally choke to death by our own puke.

[Light_beam]

lol, no flaws? means no diseases? being immortal?

[Pohjolan]

Look there's good design and bad design. Then again maybe god is just a big troll?

[Light_beam]

God forbids

[AngryCarl]

What if life just "happened" due to some obscure chemical reaction? If God wanted to create life why would he start with single-celled organisms when he could create advanced forms of life from whole cloth?

[Ironic_Method]

How do you know that it's the God that you believe in that did it and not any of the other religions?

[NamerOfStars]

No, but I see no reason why it couldn't. What would prevent it?

[genericname85]

it does that every second of every day. so why would i assume that this wasn't the case at some point in the past?

[OtterMan68]

I think believing in a supreme being is not more illogical than believing that life can spontaneously spring out of non-living materials.

[DrPepper12]

Of course! They've already done it ina lab. No grand diety necessary

[Anonymous]

Yes, you underestimate the power of the universe itself. Limited minded humans need to create fairy tales when they can't adequately explain something.

[litty736]

Book of Genesis explains how life begun. I encourage you to listen the playlist on YouTube

[Light_beam]

what is this playlist?

[litty736]

It's on YouTube here is the link

[litty736]

https://youtu.be/QcMquFbcfA0?feature=shared

[Twalli]

Not exactly that simple, but essentially yes.

[Sonorous]

Reality is life's God.

[CheeseMonster]

No, but I believe it's possible.

[spicythunder]

But god is existence is not a certainty

[Light_beam]

means what?

[spicythunder]

We don't know if there is a god

[Light_beam]

the is the ground point of believing ,, you believe in god despite that you can't see him.. you use evidence

[spicythunder]

Maybe, are you a Christian?

[Light_beam]

I am a muslim..

[spicythunder]

oh, ok..

[HelpfulWoman]

yes,

[Light_beam]

lol, ..

[RebelinSteel]

Yes I do.

[Metalbarbie]

No I don't

[Light_beam]

so who created life?

[jahaims]

Duh.