Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
55 comments displayed.
#3
-
shadowknife (12/07/2015) [-] do people even argue about crop circles anymore? i thought it was pretty well established they're created by people
#38 to #3
-
kibuza (12/07/2015) [-] Bro some people still believe a dude made a virgin give birth to himself so he could be tortured to death to forgive every single human sin forever and then brought himself back to life 3 days later.
Some people believe an almighty being thought the best way to announce his presence and his will was to send a flying human down to Earth to explain his rules over the course of 23 years to an illiterate warlord, who then ascended to meet the almighty being on a winged horse.
Is it that hard to believe some people believe crop circles are made by aliens?
Some people believe an almighty being thought the best way to announce his presence and his will was to send a flying human down to Earth to explain his rules over the course of 23 years to an illiterate warlord, who then ascended to meet the almighty being on a winged horse.
Is it that hard to believe some people believe crop circles are made by aliens?
#94 to #38
-
greyhoundfd (12/08/2015) [-] >Virgin
See, that word is the problem. "Virgin" in Greek and Latin doesn't mean the same thing as it does in English. In English, virgin means that you've never had sex. In Latin, "virgin, virginis" means that you're unmarried. The story of the Virgin Mary isn't about a woman being magically impregnated by God, it's about the birth of sainthood (The Jesus Christ) from sin (having sex with a man you aren't married to). It's a story innately about compassion.
But yeah, you clearly know absolutely nothing about Christianity or the bible anyway, other than the few mutated things on r/atheism.
See, that word is the problem. "Virgin" in Greek and Latin doesn't mean the same thing as it does in English. In English, virgin means that you've never had sex. In Latin, "virgin, virginis" means that you're unmarried. The story of the Virgin Mary isn't about a woman being magically impregnated by God, it's about the birth of sainthood (The Jesus Christ) from sin (having sex with a man you aren't married to). It's a story innately about compassion.
But yeah, you clearly know absolutely nothing about Christianity or the bible anyway, other than the few mutated things on r/atheism.
#65 to #38
-
comradvlad (12/07/2015) [-]
But bro.. the book was written a super long time ago and the book even says people will try to disprove it! You can't explain that! xD
#104 to #102
-
rockerforlife (12/08/2015) [-] mfw i'm an atheist
mfw i said edgy as a joke
mfw we're on a website called FUNNY junk
mfw i said edgy as a joke
mfw we're on a website called FUNNY junk
#78 to #62
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] Ah, geez. Please don't take this as me preaching at you or anything, I just wanna give you my point of view. Here's one of many issues I have with the evolutionary origin of life:
I'm assuming we all know proteins (an example, ribonuclease, is shown) are necessary for life, and that they're made up of a sequence of amino acids. Generally, proteins are synthesized by living creatures, but before life began, there were obviously no living creatures to create these proteins. Therefore, they had to form on their own, spontaneously. Now, it's at least plausible, if somewhat unlikely, that given the conditions postulated to exist on the earth at that time that amino acids could form, but then we have two problems:
1) Only left-handed amino acids are used in proteins. However, any amino acids formed during this period would be of both the right-handed and the left-handed variety (just like the ones formed in the famed Miller–Urey experiment). If even a single right-handed amino acid was a part of the forming proteins, they would become unsuitable for life.
2) The proteins themselves would have to form spontaneously. Looking only at the primary structure (the order of the amino acids), let's use the simplest molecule defined as a protein as an example. This has a mere 32 amino acids in its chain (proteins are generally much longer, but this is for the sake of analysis). The odds of this simple protein forming spontaneously (again, if only left-handed amino acids were present) is roughly 10^40. This is an incredibly small number, but not completely impossible. However, for life to form, multiple proteins would have to form in the same place, at the same time.
So, the spontaneous formation of life would have to involve two seeming impossibilities: the spontaneous formation of only left-handed amino acids, and the spontaneous formation of those amino acids into proteins. That's not to say there's absolutely no way for this to happen, there's an entire field of science (called abiogenesis) devoted to trying to determine if it's possible for life to form on its own. However, even experts in that field have dificullty explaining how the sheer complexity of life could have spontaneously arisen. Dr. Klaus Dose, a prominent researcher in the field, had this to say in a review article on the progress of abiogenesis research: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
Now, I'm not trying to prove that evolution didn't happen or anything. I'm just saying not everyone chooses to believe in a God simply because they're superstitious or needy. Some of us (like me) simply believe that, given the evidence, it's more logical to assume that life was created, rather than arising spontaneously.
I'm assuming we all know proteins (an example, ribonuclease, is shown) are necessary for life, and that they're made up of a sequence of amino acids. Generally, proteins are synthesized by living creatures, but before life began, there were obviously no living creatures to create these proteins. Therefore, they had to form on their own, spontaneously. Now, it's at least plausible, if somewhat unlikely, that given the conditions postulated to exist on the earth at that time that amino acids could form, but then we have two problems:
1) Only left-handed amino acids are used in proteins. However, any amino acids formed during this period would be of both the right-handed and the left-handed variety (just like the ones formed in the famed Miller–Urey experiment). If even a single right-handed amino acid was a part of the forming proteins, they would become unsuitable for life.
2) The proteins themselves would have to form spontaneously. Looking only at the primary structure (the order of the amino acids), let's use the simplest molecule defined as a protein as an example. This has a mere 32 amino acids in its chain (proteins are generally much longer, but this is for the sake of analysis). The odds of this simple protein forming spontaneously (again, if only left-handed amino acids were present) is roughly 10^40. This is an incredibly small number, but not completely impossible. However, for life to form, multiple proteins would have to form in the same place, at the same time.
So, the spontaneous formation of life would have to involve two seeming impossibilities: the spontaneous formation of only left-handed amino acids, and the spontaneous formation of those amino acids into proteins. That's not to say there's absolutely no way for this to happen, there's an entire field of science (called abiogenesis) devoted to trying to determine if it's possible for life to form on its own. However, even experts in that field have dificullty explaining how the sheer complexity of life could have spontaneously arisen. Dr. Klaus Dose, a prominent researcher in the field, had this to say in a review article on the progress of abiogenesis research: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
Now, I'm not trying to prove that evolution didn't happen or anything. I'm just saying not everyone chooses to believe in a God simply because they're superstitious or needy. Some of us (like me) simply believe that, given the evidence, it's more logical to assume that life was created, rather than arising spontaneously.
#107 to #78
-
nigeltheoutlaw (12/08/2015) [-] >actually defending creationism
>thinking the magic sky jew made life on one and only one planet and took a personal stake in its development
>thinking the magic sky jew made life on one and only one planet and took a personal stake in its development
#87 to #78
-
kibuza (12/08/2015) [-] Sorry, I would have replied sooner but I've been away from the computer.
That's all very well and good, and you are correct. It's extremely specific circumstances that would be required for life to form, I just really can't see how saying some already extremely complex being designed it.
Who created the Creator? Did they just suddenly appear out of nowhere? And if they are a creator then they are no doubt much more complicated than the protein given in your example. Does it then make more sense to assume that something more complex (and they would have to be complex because they have thought and morals and the power to design and govern a universe) than what you explained just suddenly happened? Not to me, but that's each person's individual choice.
It's like I said in a lower reply, you're right. We will never be able to disprove a God, especially if you can simply say "Well God has always existed and he exists outside the rules of the universe" There is literally nothing anyone can do or say that can disprove that. I just find it even more unlikely than Evolution.
As a side question, what religion do you follow and why is it anymore plausible than any of the other religions?
That's all very well and good, and you are correct. It's extremely specific circumstances that would be required for life to form, I just really can't see how saying some already extremely complex being designed it.
Who created the Creator? Did they just suddenly appear out of nowhere? And if they are a creator then they are no doubt much more complicated than the protein given in your example. Does it then make more sense to assume that something more complex (and they would have to be complex because they have thought and morals and the power to design and govern a universe) than what you explained just suddenly happened? Not to me, but that's each person's individual choice.
It's like I said in a lower reply, you're right. We will never be able to disprove a God, especially if you can simply say "Well God has always existed and he exists outside the rules of the universe" There is literally nothing anyone can do or say that can disprove that. I just find it even more unlikely than Evolution.
As a side question, what religion do you follow and why is it anymore plausible than any of the other religions?
#109 to #87
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] OK, so a quick bit about me so you can see where I'm coming from: I'm a pretty basic Christian (I strongly agree with the values of the Acts 29 movement). I'm also a scientist by trade, and a chemist specifically. My whole occupation is based on the scientific method, through which we observe phenomena, postulate an explanation, and come up with experiments to test our hypothesis.
Now, as you noted, that's impossible to do with God, you can't create an experiment to test if he exists (or we wouldn't be having this discussion). That said, I still believe that, in order to be consistent with the scientific method, I have to at least be open to the idea that something we can't test for does exist.
So, what leads me to the conclusion that there is some outside force that we can't completely comprehend? For me, it's essentially the lack of any reasonable physical explanation for how life this complex could exist. Evolution is pretty much the only reasonable theory, and in the years since its conception, I think if anything it's gotten more difficult to defend. We've learned just how vastly complex even "simple" life-forms like bacteria are. Heck, even simpler things seem to be made specifically just for life to exist. Water's one of the only liquids that expand when it freezes, and yet without that, our planet would just be an iceball. If we see something as simple even as a written letter, intuitively we know that was made by someone. The genetic code in one human being is the rough equivalent of 2 million individual letters. It's this level of complexity that leads me to believe that random chance could not give birth to life on its own.
The next logical question then is: why do I think my religion is the correct one? This one's a little harder, but the basic reason is that it also seems to be the best fit to what I've observed. Let me elaborate a bit: Every other religion seems to do one of two things: either set up a list of rules to follow, which you either follow or be damned, or tell you that you're really fine just where you are, if you only believe it enough. The second one is obviously incorrect to me. Just take a look around at our world. Besides, I know that deep down I myself have issues too. But the first option is equally unhelpful. Even if I muster up the willpower to follow a set of rules, I know from experience it doesn't change who I am, and I who I am is pretty nasty.
Christianity is the only religion that simultaneously acknowledges the depravity of man, and his inability to change himself. Which is why I find the Gospel so inspiring. It speaks of a God that was just, so he could not simply ignore our sin, but also of one that was so loving, he was willing to die and take our punishment upon himself, so that he could form a relationship with us, and it's that relationship that changes us for the better. I've seen this truth have a profound effect on my life, and the lives of many people that I know. It kept me from dropping out of school, kept my parents together, and transformed the most guilt-ridden man I know into someone who truly lives to help others.
So, really, the reason that I believe that my religion is the correct one, and why I believe God exists, is because I've seen the effects he's had on my life, and the lives of others. Now, I understand that's not "hard" evidence, it's not as quantifiable as, say, a reaction rate or something. I'm not trying to force you into my worldview (though I sincerely believe it's the correct one, and I'd encourage you to look into it).
So I don't take the position of "God exists" lightly. But, from what I've seen in the lives of others, and from the complexity of creation, and from my own experiences, I believe wholeheartedly that the best worldview that I can find that lines up with the facts that I know is the Christian one. That's not to say I know or can explain everything, it's just that this is where the evidence has lead me.
Now, as you noted, that's impossible to do with God, you can't create an experiment to test if he exists (or we wouldn't be having this discussion). That said, I still believe that, in order to be consistent with the scientific method, I have to at least be open to the idea that something we can't test for does exist.
So, what leads me to the conclusion that there is some outside force that we can't completely comprehend? For me, it's essentially the lack of any reasonable physical explanation for how life this complex could exist. Evolution is pretty much the only reasonable theory, and in the years since its conception, I think if anything it's gotten more difficult to defend. We've learned just how vastly complex even "simple" life-forms like bacteria are. Heck, even simpler things seem to be made specifically just for life to exist. Water's one of the only liquids that expand when it freezes, and yet without that, our planet would just be an iceball. If we see something as simple even as a written letter, intuitively we know that was made by someone. The genetic code in one human being is the rough equivalent of 2 million individual letters. It's this level of complexity that leads me to believe that random chance could not give birth to life on its own.
The next logical question then is: why do I think my religion is the correct one? This one's a little harder, but the basic reason is that it also seems to be the best fit to what I've observed. Let me elaborate a bit: Every other religion seems to do one of two things: either set up a list of rules to follow, which you either follow or be damned, or tell you that you're really fine just where you are, if you only believe it enough. The second one is obviously incorrect to me. Just take a look around at our world. Besides, I know that deep down I myself have issues too. But the first option is equally unhelpful. Even if I muster up the willpower to follow a set of rules, I know from experience it doesn't change who I am, and I who I am is pretty nasty.
Christianity is the only religion that simultaneously acknowledges the depravity of man, and his inability to change himself. Which is why I find the Gospel so inspiring. It speaks of a God that was just, so he could not simply ignore our sin, but also of one that was so loving, he was willing to die and take our punishment upon himself, so that he could form a relationship with us, and it's that relationship that changes us for the better. I've seen this truth have a profound effect on my life, and the lives of many people that I know. It kept me from dropping out of school, kept my parents together, and transformed the most guilt-ridden man I know into someone who truly lives to help others.
So, really, the reason that I believe that my religion is the correct one, and why I believe God exists, is because I've seen the effects he's had on my life, and the lives of others. Now, I understand that's not "hard" evidence, it's not as quantifiable as, say, a reaction rate or something. I'm not trying to force you into my worldview (though I sincerely believe it's the correct one, and I'd encourage you to look into it).
So I don't take the position of "God exists" lightly. But, from what I've seen in the lives of others, and from the complexity of creation, and from my own experiences, I believe wholeheartedly that the best worldview that I can find that lines up with the facts that I know is the Christian one. That's not to say I know or can explain everything, it's just that this is where the evidence has lead me.
#110 to #109
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] Apologies for the long post. It's surprisingly difficult to sum up your entire worldview in under 4000 characters. I appreciate your thoughtful response and questions, by the way.
#86 to #78
-
rapterjesus (12/08/2015) [-] Except the fact that, when following evolutionary biology backwards, there just happens to be a point where we are unsure of how it started, is not really a good logical reason to resort to belief in a creator. (At least not using proper logic)
The fact that there exists experiments which support spontaneous genesis of life as opposed to intelligent design furthers that point. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
That isn't to say this means that there is no creator personally weak agnostic myself but it shouldn't be said that such a belief is somehow supported by scientific evidence, or a lack thereof.
The fact that there exists experiments which support spontaneous genesis of life as opposed to intelligent design furthers that point. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
That isn't to say this means that there is no creator personally weak agnostic myself but it shouldn't be said that such a belief is somehow supported by scientific evidence, or a lack thereof.
#96 to #86
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] I appreciate your thoughtful response, but here's where I'd take issue with your argument. Who's to say that an evolutionary origin of life is more logical than a created one? Generally speaking, when we see something that contains a highly-organized amount of information (something like a written letter, for example) we assume that someone created it. Our genetic code is probably the highest concentration of information we know of, so how is it logical to assume that the most complex system on our planet (our bodies) evolved spontaneously?
#127 to #96
-
anon (12/08/2015) [-] age of the earth: 4,543 × 10^9 years
first humans: 2 × 10^5 years ago
remaining time: 4,5428 × 10^9
> hurr durr how can evolution come up with something so complex like the human DNA and life **********************
first humans: 2 × 10^5 years ago
remaining time: 4,5428 × 10^9
> hurr durr how can evolution come up with something so complex like the human DNA and life **********************
#129 to #127
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] Increasing the time you have for an event to occur doesn't make it more probable. Besides, I used a weak example (a very small protein). Most people argue the odds are more like 10^300. So, let's take a look at some numbers:
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150
The unit 10^80 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons.
The unit 10^45 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.
The unit 10^25 is in seconds. This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”]. This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang).
The product, 10^150, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout its duration.
Thus, any odds above 10^150 are generally considered completely impossible to achieve spontaneously in our universe, ever. And again, the odds of forming a single long-chain protein are somewhere in the vicinity of 10^300. And that's only proteins, it doesn't even consider the other molecules needed for life. The final nail in the coffin? All those molecules would have to spontaneously form, in the same place, at the same time, when the odds for forming just one of them are already stretching the bounds of credibility. Deleted my older comment because I messed up some powers and wanted to add a little more info.
![Increasing the time you have for an event to occur doesn't make it more probable. Besides, I used a weak example (a very small protein). Most people argue the odds are more like 10^300. So, let's take a look at some numbers:
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150
The unit 10^80 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons.
The unit 10^45 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.
The unit 10^25 is in seconds. This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”]. This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang).
The product, 10^150, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout its duration.
Thus, any odds above 10^150 are generally considered completely impossible to achieve spontaneously in our universe, ever. And again, the odds of forming a single long-chain protein are somewhere in the vicinity of 10^300. And that's only proteins, it doesn't even consider the other molecules needed for life. The final nail in the coffin? All those molecules would have to spontaneously form, in the same place, at the same time, when the odds for forming just one of them are already stretching the bounds of credibility. Deleted my older comment because I messed up some powers and wanted to add a little more info.](http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Increasing+the+time+you+have+for+an+event+to+occur+_ee8dcf61718e09216257358fb20e6491.jpg)
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150
The unit 10^80 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons.
The unit 10^45 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.
The unit 10^25 is in seconds. This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”]. This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang).
The product, 10^150, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout its duration.
Thus, any odds above 10^150 are generally considered completely impossible to achieve spontaneously in our universe, ever. And again, the odds of forming a single long-chain protein are somewhere in the vicinity of 10^300. And that's only proteins, it doesn't even consider the other molecules needed for life. The final nail in the coffin? All those molecules would have to spontaneously form, in the same place, at the same time, when the odds for forming just one of them are already stretching the bounds of credibility. Deleted my older comment because I messed up some powers and wanted to add a little more info.
#115 to #108
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] In answer to your first question: Well . . . yes. Not trying to oversimplify here, but can you give me an example of something complex that wasn't the product of another complex object? I'll freely admit I'm no expert on the field of information theory, but what I have learned is that we have never observed information-rich systems to spontaneously occur. Entropy always screws things up. Certain low-levels of order do happen (like freezing solids) but these systems have very little information contained in them.
As far as the second question: for me, it boils down this. Either I accept that everything we know about science is, on some level, fundamentally wrong, and that life could spontaneously create itself in spite of everything we currently know about information theory and entropy, or I accept the fact that something outside of my comprehension created those things, and that our grasp of science is correct.
That may seem like a cop-out, but to me, it just seems the more reasonable of the two explanations. Science doesn't exist to give us only theories we like, rather, its purpose is to find the best-fit hypothesis for the data we have available. To me, the idea of a Creator not bound by the 3-dimensional universe and laws we're stuck with seems to fit best.
As far as the second question: for me, it boils down this. Either I accept that everything we know about science is, on some level, fundamentally wrong, and that life could spontaneously create itself in spite of everything we currently know about information theory and entropy, or I accept the fact that something outside of my comprehension created those things, and that our grasp of science is correct.
That may seem like a cop-out, but to me, it just seems the more reasonable of the two explanations. Science doesn't exist to give us only theories we like, rather, its purpose is to find the best-fit hypothesis for the data we have available. To me, the idea of a Creator not bound by the 3-dimensional universe and laws we're stuck with seems to fit best.
#119 to #115
-
kibuza (12/08/2015) [-] Well I guess we can just politely disagree. Honestly it was good talking to you about this, even if we do disagree. It's nice to be able to talk to people about tough topics like these in a calm and respectful manner, and you seem like a smart guy.
Also I didn't mean to sound salty if it came off that way in #108, I've been getting a lot of replies on this (surprise surprise) and I noticed you had answered another point but hadn't replied and I was interested in hearing a response.
Anyways, I'm gonna get off now. I got work tomorrow.
...Stupid work...
Also I didn't mean to sound salty if it came off that way in #108, I've been getting a lot of replies on this (surprise surprise) and I noticed you had answered another point but hadn't replied and I was interested in hearing a response.
Anyways, I'm gonna get off now. I got work tomorrow.
...Stupid work...
#122 to #119
-
thepizzadevourer (12/08/2015) [-] Likewise. I too have a busy day tomorrow, gotta take a test. If you're ever interested in a more detailed response, you can check out my comment >>#109 if you haven't seen it already. sleep tight!
#68 to #62
-
alixdtkari (12/07/2015) [-]
You may be right.
But on the other hand there just might be an almighty being that created us all. He can be so powerful that it can cause different conflicts between his creatures about whether he even exists at all and did he really create anything because there is basically no way this world could be a product of someone's imagination?
Can you give me a reason for why we all exist? I mean yeah, big bang and all. but why did it happen? why anything ever existed?
I am an atheist and I can't answer this question.
Everything can be (or either at some point will be) explained via physics, but what if physics is just God's another creation? I mean he can be sitting up there, watching us trying to figure out if he exists or not, killing each other because some think his name is Yahweh and others think his name is Allah, and laughing his divine ass off.
TL;DR: We can prove things but in the end we will NEVER know. Unless he descends from heaven and say **** like 'roight guys you can stop now. I exist and I made you all'
But on the other hand there just might be an almighty being that created us all. He can be so powerful that it can cause different conflicts between his creatures about whether he even exists at all and did he really create anything because there is basically no way this world could be a product of someone's imagination?
Can you give me a reason for why we all exist? I mean yeah, big bang and all. but why did it happen? why anything ever existed?
I am an atheist and I can't answer this question.
Everything can be (or either at some point will be) explained via physics, but what if physics is just God's another creation? I mean he can be sitting up there, watching us trying to figure out if he exists or not, killing each other because some think his name is Yahweh and others think his name is Allah, and laughing his divine ass off.
TL;DR: We can prove things but in the end we will NEVER know. Unless he descends from heaven and say **** like 'roight guys you can stop now. I exist and I made you all'
#85 to #68
-
itsapirateslife (12/08/2015) [-] 'Why are we here' is a silly question in the first place. As is there should be a reason and purpose for how the oh so great humans came to be. It just happened. Just coincidence. Oh and you say you're an atheist but that's not e very atheistic question
#111 to #90
-
lathyrusvii (12/08/2015) [-] One of life's great mysteries isn't it? Why are we here? I mean, are we the product of some cosmic coincidence? Or is there really a God, watching everything. You know, with a plan for us and stuff. I don't know man, but it keeps me up at night.
#83 to #68
-
semiprogravy (12/08/2015) [-] i've always explained it to myself as it couldn't help but happen, in some way you can use murphy's law to extrapolate to a weird form of determinism. murphy's law isn't fact of course, but it states that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. i've come to think that through this, any time something doesn't go wrong it's because it was simply impossible for it to happen. the circumstances just weren't there for an event to take place. where as with the creation of the universe, it couldn't help but happen. theres many things in physics that are beyond my grasp, but basically the way i see it, the reason that everything is, is simply because it just is, and we're subject to it.
#69 to #68
-
kibuza (12/07/2015) [-] That was my entire point. If is he/she/it did descend and could somehow prove it was God then sure I'd change my view and believe because that would be evidence. Even at that point though I wouldn't assume it's God because for all I know at the time it could be an alien race that happens to be super powerful with control over physics.
Bringing a God in to the equation of why anything exists just brings up more problems. Why does the God exist? Who created the God? You can't just say God has always existed, because then I can just turn around and say the requirements for the Big Bang always existed.
Also on the subject of life's meaning. The Universe does not owe you a reason to live. The universe does not owe you an explanation as to why YOU specifically exist. We make those for ourselves. What the meaning of life is to me may be drastically different than what it is to you. You could argue biology and say the meaning is to pass on genes and continue the species, but that isn't the kind of meaning most people are looking for.
And yes, we will never disprove God. We will never disprove the Tooth Fairy or Leprechauns or Thor. Technically I am agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, but it's to such a degree where you may as well just call be a Tooth Fairy Atheist.
Bringing a God in to the equation of why anything exists just brings up more problems. Why does the God exist? Who created the God? You can't just say God has always existed, because then I can just turn around and say the requirements for the Big Bang always existed.
Also on the subject of life's meaning. The Universe does not owe you a reason to live. The universe does not owe you an explanation as to why YOU specifically exist. We make those for ourselves. What the meaning of life is to me may be drastically different than what it is to you. You could argue biology and say the meaning is to pass on genes and continue the species, but that isn't the kind of meaning most people are looking for.
And yes, we will never disprove God. We will never disprove the Tooth Fairy or Leprechauns or Thor. Technically I am agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, but it's to such a degree where you may as well just call be a Tooth Fairy Atheist.
#99 to #69
-
brawlanator (12/08/2015) [-] My friend you are personifying God. He is not a thing. He is the essence of love itself. We did not create love. Christian over here. Profile picture old (before I realized how ignorant I was)
#112 to #99
-
kibuza (12/08/2015) [-] So if God is love itself, and we are created in his image, why would he bother giving the ability to love to something like say... a chimp.
You know, the animals we share 80+% of our DNA with and came from the same evolutionary paths that we did? Did god decide to give love to everything similar to humans? If God is the essence of love why does he feel the need to threaten me with eternal suffering if I turn my back to him?
That's the same as if I was to say to my child "I love you honey, but I am going to torture you for the rest of your natural life if you do not love me back" In fact it's worse because it's for all eternity. That's ****** up don't you think?
And again, I will always bring this point up again. Why is your God the correct God? What makes your God right and another one wrong? Why Jesus and not Allah? Why Thor and not Vishnu? Chances are if you grew up in India you'd believe in Vishnu, not God. What makes the Christian God the correct God?
You know, the animals we share 80+% of our DNA with and came from the same evolutionary paths that we did? Did god decide to give love to everything similar to humans? If God is the essence of love why does he feel the need to threaten me with eternal suffering if I turn my back to him?
That's the same as if I was to say to my child "I love you honey, but I am going to torture you for the rest of your natural life if you do not love me back" In fact it's worse because it's for all eternity. That's ****** up don't you think?
And again, I will always bring this point up again. Why is your God the correct God? What makes your God right and another one wrong? Why Jesus and not Allah? Why Thor and not Vishnu? Chances are if you grew up in India you'd believe in Vishnu, not God. What makes the Christian God the correct God?
#121 to #112
-
brawlanator (12/08/2015) [-] Gotchu fam. We all naturally turn our back on what God says. God has godly standards, and only God, (Jesus), could fulfill his law. Everything He does is in perfect harmony with His love. Would it not be unfair to let a murderer go scott free? By no means, he will, and should be judged accordingly. We are only made holy through faith that what Jesus did on the cross. We are all guilty and deserving of hell. Period. That's were Jesus comes in. He took the blame that would be given to us. So it's grace we are given through faith that is in Christ Jesus. But why did he die for us? That is the demonstration of God's love for us. He became a person, and literally died an agonizing and criminals death for us. All God talk aside, who would you know would die for you in an agonizing way for a drunkard, a murderer, a thief, or a lair? Who would die for someone who still enjoys these various passions and pleasures that will only lead them to ruin? Back to the previous point, God demands perfection, or you fail. There is no partiality, not even a little. What can I say? He has literal God-tier standards. But that's just how much he loves us. That while we were still rolling in our sin. Enjoying the mess outta of it even. That He took the blame for what we do everyday.
As for the evidences, there are over 26,000 documents that Jesus walked the earth. and about 700 years later the Qu'ran popped up after the Apostles. On top of that, that Qu'ran says that the bible is not corrupt ( carm.org/quran-says-bible-not-corrupt ).
Yet the bible contradicts the Qu'ran, and even the Qu'ran contradicts itself.
And honestly a quick google search and some research will go a long way. There's no reason to be afraid of the sources because they site the books themselves. Be sure not to have them being taken out of context (I can help you with that). And even still, every religion in the world is about man reaching to God, while Christianity is about God reaching to man. It's the ultimate love story.
As for the evidences, there are over 26,000 documents that Jesus walked the earth. and about 700 years later the Qu'ran popped up after the Apostles. On top of that, that Qu'ran says that the bible is not corrupt ( carm.org/quran-says-bible-not-corrupt ).
Yet the bible contradicts the Qu'ran, and even the Qu'ran contradicts itself.
And honestly a quick google search and some research will go a long way. There's no reason to be afraid of the sources because they site the books themselves. Be sure not to have them being taken out of context (I can help you with that). And even still, every religion in the world is about man reaching to God, while Christianity is about God reaching to man. It's the ultimate love story.
#123 to #121
-
kibuza (12/08/2015) [-] I have no doubt someone named Jesus walked the Earth many years ago. I do however doubt that he could turn water in to wine and walk on water or be returned from the dead because there is no scientific evidence that can support that. Just as there is no evidence of him being God.
God loves me so much he is willing to come to Earth as a man, be tortured to death for my sins, and then at the same time cast me in to a lake of fire for all eternity for what I do with my penis? Or because I do not believe in and live by the rules of someone who defied natural laws some thousand years ago and has not made an appearance since? Excuse me if I find that a bit hard to believe.
I'm not homosexual, that was an example but I don't see why God is so interested in what people do with their genitalia.
God loves me so much he is willing to come to Earth as a man, be tortured to death for my sins, and then at the same time cast me in to a lake of fire for all eternity for what I do with my penis? Or because I do not believe in and live by the rules of someone who defied natural laws some thousand years ago and has not made an appearance since? Excuse me if I find that a bit hard to believe.
I'm not homosexual, that was an example but I don't see why God is so interested in what people do with their genitalia.
#125 to #123
-
brawlanator (12/08/2015) [-] And besides, it's only if you don't accept Him as your Savior. If you don't believe that he saved you, then my friend he didn't and you condemn yourself because of it. But he payed ransom for everyone.
#124 to #123
-
brawlanator (12/08/2015) [-] Well He is a jealous God. Which is weird to me, but in that same time, He is the only one who knows and wants the best outcomes for us. It also says in the bible that there were 500 witnesses that saw Jesus resurrect. Some more questions that would pop up evidences would be found here : hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/647/what-happened-to-the-500-witnesses-in-1-corinthians-15
#72 to #69
-
alixdtkari (12/07/2015) [-]
I couldn't care less about reasons to live (not being edgy, I'm just not a philosophical type).
My question was more like 'how' and not 'why'. How whatever existed before Big Bang came to be? Who created that sandbox that we call our Universe? And if it were aliens and let's say we live in a simulated environment - great, but who created them? What was the starting point of anything ever in existence of everything? If there was such at all.
My question was more like 'how' and not 'why'. How whatever existed before Big Bang came to be? Who created that sandbox that we call our Universe? And if it were aliens and let's say we live in a simulated environment - great, but who created them? What was the starting point of anything ever in existence of everything? If there was such at all.
#74 to #72
-
kibuza (12/07/2015) [-] Go read up on it. A lot of physicists would argue that the Big Bang is the start of time. So that's how it started, if you're willing to believe what scientific evidence we have so far.
Or you can go the other route and say "Well some all-powerful person must have made it" which in my opinion, answers nothing. It's a non-answer.
I personally don't understand how Mantis Shrimp can see more colours than I can, but I don't go saying some all powerful being must have given them better spectrum reception.
Or you can go the other route and say "Well some all-powerful person must have made it" which in my opinion, answers nothing. It's a non-answer.
I personally don't understand how Mantis Shrimp can see more colours than I can, but I don't go saying some all powerful being must have given them better spectrum reception.
#21 to #9
-
abesimpson (12/07/2015) [-] I think you accidently called him a lizard man.
or maybe it wasn't an accident. Dun dun duuuuun
or maybe it wasn't an accident. Dun dun duuuuun
#11 to #9
-
komandantmirkoo (12/07/2015) [-] everytime i see some nasa photos of pluto or something on facebook, there's like 50 people saying it's fake and that the world is flat.
they're not even trolling. judging by their appearance, their gene pool seems to be a bit.. shallow.
they're not even trolling. judging by their appearance, their gene pool seems to be a bit.. shallow.
#22 to #11
-
abesimpson (12/07/2015) [-] We can literally fly around the world and there are people who still argue that the world is flat?
#33 to #22
-
testaburger (12/07/2015) [-] "Yeah but that's just god using miracles to mess with your perception" basically counters any evidence, ever.
