Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

alltimetens

Rank #2975 on Subscribers
alltimetens Avatar Level 312 Content: Wizard
Offline
Send mail to alltimetens Block alltimetens Invite alltimetens to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Interests: Interesting things
Date Signed Up:2/07/2012
Last Login:12/26/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#12692
Comment Ranking:#15658
Highest Content Rank:#14
Highest Comment Rank:#1365
Content Thumbs: 120653 total,  132059 ,  11406
Comment Thumbs: 4973 total,  8704 ,  3731
Content Level Progress: 3.07% (307/10000)
Level 312 Content: Wizard → Level 313 Content: Wizard
Comment Level Progress: 11% (11/100)
Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:27
Content Views:4765490
Times Content Favorited:7236 times
Total Comments Made:4376
FJ Points:110126
Favorite Tags: The Game (2)
Just an average Funny Junk user who shares images. I am not accepting any trade requests. You can have my items, however, I am not giving/trading my FJ points. Feel free to subscribe.

latest user's comments

#70201 - Read my other comment. If you are not infinite, then … 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70200 - I didn't explicitly state that God exists. I am mere…  [+] (33 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70202 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The fact remains that there is no evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient god. Just like there is no evidence of a life creating potent deity, justlike there is no evidence of an anthropomorphic god, just like there is no evidence of fairy tales.

No matter what criteria you apply to it you're not making it any more true, you still require evidence.
User avatar #70204 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
The issue with people that claim that there is no evidence for God is that they consistently provide alternatives for the creation of the universe.

What they don't realize is that there "alternatives" are just as substantiated by physical evidence as the belief in God.

I'm not providing you with emprical evidence, I'm providing you with a logical chain of thought that has only one definite solution.

All I am saying is that there is a God. I am not giving you its appearance, agenda, etc.
User avatar #70207 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The issue with people that claim that there is no evidence for god is that there is no evidence of god.

As for alternatives there is far more evidence. We know how life developed through evolution which is backed up by evidence, we know how life started through abiogensis which is backed up by evidence, we know how stars and planets formed which is backed up by evidence, we know how the universe started by the big bang which is backed up by evidence and we even know how a universe can arise out of nothing through quantum mechanics which is backed up by evidence.

But even if these weren't the case, it's NOT up to me to provide evidence for an alternative explanation, it's up to YOU who makes the CLAIM that god exists to provide EVIDENCE which you fail to do so.
User avatar #70212 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay, I never denied any of those explanations. Evolution does not explain the big picture; it only explains how life itself began/changed over the course of time.

You also act as if evolution, planetary formation, etc. contradict the belief in God.

I believe in a God that created the universe and set its laws in motion. These laws include all of these that you described.

I was referring to ideas such as String Theory. When I ask any atheist about how they believe the universe formed, they bring up things like the multiverse.

Of course, I keep an open mind and I believe in the multiverse/String Theory. But the problem is is that they deny an idea that has just as much evidence as the ideas they applaud.
User avatar #70214 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I never said it contradicts the belief in god, what i'm saying is that it provides an alternative explanation that makes a belief in god unnecessary. Also evolution doesn't explain the big picture, but abiogenesis, star formation, big bang and quantum mechanics do. As for string theory/multiverse these are alternative explanations still in their proto-science days so they do not have any evidence so far indeed, quantum mechanics does however.

I don't really care whether you believe in god setting them in motion, what i care about is your evidence that god does so.
User avatar #70218 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That is still wrong.

Planetary/Star formation does not explain how the universe formed.


This shows that you lack the understanding of science as you would know that the universe did not have any stars/planets in its preliminary stages.
User avatar #70221 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Ugh are you an idiot? I used abiogenesis, star formation, big bang and quantum mechanics as an umbrella term for a timeline of the universe that explains the big picture, not just about how the universe arose.
User avatar #70224 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That's great and all, but that doesn't explain anything worthwhile. I know that already.

If you honestly believed (which I am sure you don't) that those have anything to do with how the universe arose/formed then I am sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Furthermore, I could easily say that theology is still in its "early phase".
User avatar #70230 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Quantum mechanics explain how the universe arised, the big bang explains how the universe expanded, star formation explains how the universe is in it's current state and abiogenesis explains how life formed from inorganic elements.

Theology has been going on for thousands of years and they have not once been able to show any shred of evidence of a devine being. The multiverse hypothesis and string theory are mere decades old and are already showing results and potential.
User avatar #70236 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
But you cannot prove to me that Quantum Mechanics is infinite.

The fact of the matter is, is that at the end of the day, each finite thing (in this case, everything) would need to have a creator that is infinite.
User avatar #70240 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
But i can, quantum mechanics and vacuum states can cause virtual particles to infinitely pop in and out of existence from nothing, this has been demonstrated.

No it doesn't, there's no logical reason to assume that it needs to be a creator or that it needs to be infinite, all it needs to do is show how arbitrary time is and that cause and effect can be violated which quantum mechanics shows.
User avatar #70250 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
Not to but in but I was curious if you were still online and saw this. I'd like to point out that the universe would've had to come out of ex nihlo but the particles have a something to pop into existence for. If what I said makes sense.
User avatar #70253 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
That's more of a semantic issue. Whether or not it's from a philosophical ex nihilo or a zero-energy it remains a fact that it violates the law of causality which is enough to get a universe out of "nothing"
User avatar #70254 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
I'd say not. The difference between particles popping into existence now and the 'beginning' of the universe is a large difference. The quantum vacuum you refer to still has a level of energy. It is the difference between the vacuum of space and a room on earth.
Again, not trying to undermine your point, the comparison IS there, but the to say it's the same as a zero energy is false.
User avatar #70261 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I could try, but since the arguments are ones i probably agree with a lot it's probably not going to be easy for me.
User avatar #70264 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
good point. I should ask thread.
I'd still value your input anyway
User avatar #70258 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I never stated that a zero energy and ex nihilo are the same. But what i am saying is that a zero energy universe is a default position where a universe can arise from through quantum flunctuations and therefor violate causality.
User avatar #70260 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
okie
anyway, is it okay if you critique the thing I wrote? I like input
User avatar #70243 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That still doesn't prove to me that they have been popping into existence for all of eternity.

I don't understand what you mean here. If something has not existed for eternity, then surely something would need to create it.
User avatar #70246 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
What matters is that they violate causality, so a universe can arise from virtual particles that pop out of nothing, principles such as finite do not apply to something that violates the law of time.

No, that's based on the assumption that time is completely linear, we now know how that time is a physical entity that can be bend, disorted and stopped. And with quantum mechanics we are finding out how completely weird time truly is. Unless you actually understand how time and physics work then we can talk again about causality.
User avatar #70247 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1.) A god itself violates causality.

2.) You make a good point. But you still don't answer how something "popping" into existence distorts time.
User avatar #70386 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You clearly don't understand what energy fields are it seems. A zero energy universe is nothing and violates the law of time and causality.
User avatar #70387 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already explained to you that they describe what is going on from what we can perceive in our own universe.

They do not explain whether or not they come from nothing or if they come from some unobservable source.
User avatar #70381 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields, which is nothing. Open a physics book for once.
User avatar #70383 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You do realize that these energy fields only describe what is in our universe and don't indicate whether or not they appear from something beyond our observance?
User avatar #70378 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Why do you assume my argument has no basis? That makes no sense, all i'm saying is that virtual particles violates causality therefor your simplistic idea of cause and effect that requires a god is unnecessary.
User avatar #70380 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Because you cannot prove that virtual particles violate causality because you cannot prove that they come from nothing.

That's why I am trying to say. You can't prove that they come from nothing just as you can't prove that they come from an unknown dimension/universe/the future/the past.

As you can see, you don't have enough of a basis to make such pronouncements.
User avatar #70335 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF THEY COME FROM NOTHING OR NOT WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THEY VIOLATE THE LAW OF CAUSALITY MAKING GOD UNNECESSARY.
User avatar #70376 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Are you dense?

Yes it does. Because if you can't prove that the virtual particles come out from nothing, then your argument has no basis. Nothing is infringing causality because you cannot prove that anything does.
User avatar #70249 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Irrelevant to my point, the fact remains is there is something that violates causality which we have proven to exist where as there is no evidence of god.

Because it pops in and out of existence from nothing, this violates causality and thus time. As for disorting we can disort time even without quantum mechanics through very simple principles such as time dilation, in fact it's theoretically possible to stop time entirely inside a black hole due to this phenomenon.
User avatar #70269 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
There is no evidence that these particles pop out of existence from nothing*

In fact, I could easily state that these particles appeared from different universes/dimensions with total randomness.

The fact of the matter is that you are using things that are just as substantiated as God.

Do virtual particles exist? Yes

Do they come out from nothing? No evidence.

Does God exist? Logically, yes.

Do we know of God's agenda, motives, appearance, etc.? No.
User avatar #70267 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
There is still no evidence that there particles pop out of nothing.
User avatar #70255 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltimetens
#70199 - I'm saying that it is strategically disadvantageous to disbeli…  [+] (15 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70321 - dabeetus (05/31/2014) [-]
Yeah, but you don't know that if such a being that fits the concept of God exists, what they will do to those who believe or disbelieve in a concept that is similar to the existing "God". The "God" could punish those who believed in it because their reasons to believe could seem foolish to "God". The "God" might not even determine their fate based on that, instead on good deeds or success in life.
User avatar #70203 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
At your point does it seem that way. Why do I even "need" to believe? Why does a supreme being even care?
User avatar #70205 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Well, like I said, if you use that argument to support your disbelief, then I can use that very same argument to support my ignorance.

Why does the universe care if I believe in Newtons Law of Motion? Why do the animals care if I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Obviously, I believe in both of them. But at the end of the day, I don't need to believe in anything. That doesn't mean that it isn't better to believe from an intellectual standpoint.
User avatar #70211 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I can't simply understand why a God would create everything, and if they didn't believe that he did, he would punish them for all eternity. What about kids that didn't get the chance to grow up and believe? What would happen to this person? livingasariver.com/elements/consciousness/split-brain-with-one-half-atheist-and-one-half-theist/comment-page-1
User avatar #70213 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, but that is such a brash and uneducated argument.

To answer your question...

WE DON'T KNOW!

Like I said, I am only here to argue that there is a God. No more, no less. I am not here to dispute the motives of that God, nor am I here to debate the philosophy of this God. I am only here to say that this God exists.

Furthermore, why do you resort to oversimplification? If a God does in fact judge humans, then why can't you consider the fact that perhaps there are various forms of judgement that accomodate different people?

This is not like the U.S Judicial System where all court cases are ruled evenly. I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently.
User avatar #70227 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Why is it an uneducated?

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has.

"I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently."

Why do you believe that? Has God told you that he does so?
User avatar #70231 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Because omniscient implies that that God knows every single thing and all of its forms plus all of the things that will never exist.
User avatar #70241 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
I asked why would he judge everyone individually.

I accidentally cut a part of the my sentence above. It should be:

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has to believe.
User avatar #70210 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
belief =/= proven scientific concepts

Jesus christ man.
User avatar #70216 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Except I have already given you an abundance of logical chains of thought that you continue to deny.
User avatar #70222 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
bhahahaahahahahaahahaahahaahaahaahahaah, I too LIKE YOU believe that some sort of creator/something exists. However I "believe", are you implying you can prove he does with "logical chains of thought"
User avatar #70228 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Of course.

I don't get how that is worthy of ridicule as that is how almost everything that cannot be seen/observed in some way, shape, or form is explained.
User avatar #70414 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/31/2014) [-]
so... can you?
User avatar #70237 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Go Ahead prove it to me then. After all I'm on your side in belief. However someone else would have to attempt to debunk.
User avatar #70256 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm also waiting for this when you get the chance.
#70198 - The thing is, I don't need to believe in anything. Re…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70206 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
"Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter. "

No you aren't using my mindset at all, science and mathematics are about evidence, the existence of God has no credible evidence therefore it is a belief.

I'm not even an atheist, im an agnostic deist/theist
User avatar #70220 - teoragnar (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually you can't prove that anything is even real, you just assume it's real.
User avatar #70226 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay man, sure.
#70196 - That's a good start, but it's still an illogical perception. …  [+] (18 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70209 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually there are MANY religions and based on what some say, if you don't believe in the right one you go to hell.

Also, just being a deist doesn't mean going to Heaven for almost all religions, you actually have to follow religions like Christianity and Islam. And again, you are taking a big chance since there are so many, it is just illogical to do so.
User avatar #70197 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
What do I have to lose? I also can't just "start" believing out of nowhere, as for me, there is nothing to believe.
User avatar #70199 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm saying that it is strategically disadvantageous to disbelieve than believe.

It's like saying that you would rather die a brutal death or nothing over you winning a million dollars or nothing.
User avatar #70321 - dabeetus (05/31/2014) [-]
Yeah, but you don't know that if such a being that fits the concept of God exists, what they will do to those who believe or disbelieve in a concept that is similar to the existing "God". The "God" could punish those who believed in it because their reasons to believe could seem foolish to "God". The "God" might not even determine their fate based on that, instead on good deeds or success in life.
User avatar #70203 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
At your point does it seem that way. Why do I even "need" to believe? Why does a supreme being even care?
User avatar #70205 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Well, like I said, if you use that argument to support your disbelief, then I can use that very same argument to support my ignorance.

Why does the universe care if I believe in Newtons Law of Motion? Why do the animals care if I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Obviously, I believe in both of them. But at the end of the day, I don't need to believe in anything. That doesn't mean that it isn't better to believe from an intellectual standpoint.
User avatar #70211 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I can't simply understand why a God would create everything, and if they didn't believe that he did, he would punish them for all eternity. What about kids that didn't get the chance to grow up and believe? What would happen to this person? livingasariver.com/elements/consciousness/split-brain-with-one-half-atheist-and-one-half-theist/comment-page-1
User avatar #70213 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, but that is such a brash and uneducated argument.

To answer your question...

WE DON'T KNOW!

Like I said, I am only here to argue that there is a God. No more, no less. I am not here to dispute the motives of that God, nor am I here to debate the philosophy of this God. I am only here to say that this God exists.

Furthermore, why do you resort to oversimplification? If a God does in fact judge humans, then why can't you consider the fact that perhaps there are various forms of judgement that accomodate different people?

This is not like the U.S Judicial System where all court cases are ruled evenly. I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently.
User avatar #70227 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Why is it an uneducated?

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has.

"I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently."

Why do you believe that? Has God told you that he does so?
User avatar #70231 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Because omniscient implies that that God knows every single thing and all of its forms plus all of the things that will never exist.
User avatar #70241 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
I asked why would he judge everyone individually.

I accidentally cut a part of the my sentence above. It should be:

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has to believe.
User avatar #70210 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
belief =/= proven scientific concepts

Jesus christ man.
User avatar #70216 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Except I have already given you an abundance of logical chains of thought that you continue to deny.
User avatar #70222 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
bhahahaahahahahaahahaahahaahaahaahahaah, I too LIKE YOU believe that some sort of creator/something exists. However I "believe", are you implying you can prove he does with "logical chains of thought"
User avatar #70228 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Of course.

I don't get how that is worthy of ridicule as that is how almost everything that cannot be seen/observed in some way, shape, or form is explained.
User avatar #70414 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/31/2014) [-]
so... can you?
User avatar #70237 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Go Ahead prove it to me then. After all I'm on your side in belief. However someone else would have to attempt to debunk.
User avatar #70256 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm also waiting for this when you get the chance.
#70191 - Except you're missing the big picture. You're still s…  [+] (47 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70217 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
You completely ignored the fact that kanade proved you wrong about the whole "why not believe"/pascal's wager
User avatar #70219 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
It actually hasn't proven me wrong.
User avatar #70223 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I've shown how pascal's wager is a false dichotomy. There isn't just a negative/neutral and positive/neutral option. The wager spans over hundreds of thousands of religions and depictions of god.
User avatar #70225 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Who says I believe in a particular religion. That is why I have completely ignored that argument. It doesn't apply to my beliefs.

There doesn't have to be an afterlife for there to be a God.
User avatar #70235 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Completely irrelevant, your deistic god is as equally possible as a christian god or an islamic god. If the islamic god appears to be true you will be send to hell because you believed in a deistic god thus losing the wager.

And the fact that a deistic god does not need an afterlife destroys your entire argument since choosing to believe in a god doesn't quarantee heaven/hell.
User avatar #70239 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1) Actually, it is entirely relevant as one could easily spot loopholes in a religious-based deity. However, it is impossible to undermine a God not affiliated with any particular religion.

2.) That's only one portion of my argument. Even still, you're wrong because I simply stated that there doesn't need to be an afterlife. That doesn't mean that there isn't.
User avatar #70242 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Many of these loopholes can generally be debunked pretty easily, it doesn't make your deistic god any more plausible.

The chance of the god having an afterlife and having no afterlife is equal, hence your false dichotomy of negative/neutral positive/neutral is false as the wager is equally high, that's even ignoring the dozens of other gods that we can wager on.
User avatar #70244 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1.) Yes it does, because if I can pinpoint a loophole/fallacy in all religious-based deities, then that would make a non-religious deity more plausible.

That's like saying that if Albert's theory has a loophole, then that doesn't make Newton's impossible-to-undermine theory any more plausible. You are associating a possibility and a non-possibility with each other.

2.) Where is your proof that the possibility is equal?
User avatar #70248 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
If you can do that you might, but you can't. I'd love to see you try.

Since both a god with an afterlife and a god without an afterlife have equally amount of evidence of them existing it's only mathematically logical that their possibilities of either is equal.
User avatar #70268 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I just did. Christianity is full of loopholes. Please look them up yourself.

Except you can't use math to justify that.

It's like saying that there is a mathematical 50% chance that there is an apple in my hand.

You don't have enough variables to make a mathematical probability.
User avatar #70233 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
what kinda circular logic are you fucking using dood?

"Believe in God? If you are...

Correct: Heaven

Incorrect: Nothing

Don't believe in God? If you are...

Correct: Nothing "

This was shown to be stupid so you say it doesn't apply to you, then don't fucking use it. Plain and simple.
User avatar #70245 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
You completely missed out, "dood"

I said that if you want to argue on the basis that there is no afterlife, then that still does not undermine my beliefs.
User avatar #70193 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The fact that you describe your god as omnipotent and omniscient is not evidence that he exists. That's circular reasoning.

You need to provide evidence for the existence of this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god.
User avatar #70200 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I didn't explicitly state that God exists.

I am merely saying that IF God exists, then that is the criteria that that God would need to accomodate. Otherwise, he/she/it would not fit the criteria of a God.
User avatar #70202 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The fact remains that there is no evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient god. Just like there is no evidence of a life creating potent deity, justlike there is no evidence of an anthropomorphic god, just like there is no evidence of fairy tales.

No matter what criteria you apply to it you're not making it any more true, you still require evidence.
User avatar #70204 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
The issue with people that claim that there is no evidence for God is that they consistently provide alternatives for the creation of the universe.

What they don't realize is that there "alternatives" are just as substantiated by physical evidence as the belief in God.

I'm not providing you with emprical evidence, I'm providing you with a logical chain of thought that has only one definite solution.

All I am saying is that there is a God. I am not giving you its appearance, agenda, etc.
User avatar #70207 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The issue with people that claim that there is no evidence for god is that there is no evidence of god.

As for alternatives there is far more evidence. We know how life developed through evolution which is backed up by evidence, we know how life started through abiogensis which is backed up by evidence, we know how stars and planets formed which is backed up by evidence, we know how the universe started by the big bang which is backed up by evidence and we even know how a universe can arise out of nothing through quantum mechanics which is backed up by evidence.

But even if these weren't the case, it's NOT up to me to provide evidence for an alternative explanation, it's up to YOU who makes the CLAIM that god exists to provide EVIDENCE which you fail to do so.
User avatar #70212 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay, I never denied any of those explanations. Evolution does not explain the big picture; it only explains how life itself began/changed over the course of time.

You also act as if evolution, planetary formation, etc. contradict the belief in God.

I believe in a God that created the universe and set its laws in motion. These laws include all of these that you described.

I was referring to ideas such as String Theory. When I ask any atheist about how they believe the universe formed, they bring up things like the multiverse.

Of course, I keep an open mind and I believe in the multiverse/String Theory. But the problem is is that they deny an idea that has just as much evidence as the ideas they applaud.
User avatar #70214 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I never said it contradicts the belief in god, what i'm saying is that it provides an alternative explanation that makes a belief in god unnecessary. Also evolution doesn't explain the big picture, but abiogenesis, star formation, big bang and quantum mechanics do. As for string theory/multiverse these are alternative explanations still in their proto-science days so they do not have any evidence so far indeed, quantum mechanics does however.

I don't really care whether you believe in god setting them in motion, what i care about is your evidence that god does so.
User avatar #70218 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That is still wrong.

Planetary/Star formation does not explain how the universe formed.


This shows that you lack the understanding of science as you would know that the universe did not have any stars/planets in its preliminary stages.
User avatar #70221 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Ugh are you an idiot? I used abiogenesis, star formation, big bang and quantum mechanics as an umbrella term for a timeline of the universe that explains the big picture, not just about how the universe arose.
User avatar #70224 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That's great and all, but that doesn't explain anything worthwhile. I know that already.

If you honestly believed (which I am sure you don't) that those have anything to do with how the universe arose/formed then I am sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Furthermore, I could easily say that theology is still in its "early phase".
User avatar #70230 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Quantum mechanics explain how the universe arised, the big bang explains how the universe expanded, star formation explains how the universe is in it's current state and abiogenesis explains how life formed from inorganic elements.

Theology has been going on for thousands of years and they have not once been able to show any shred of evidence of a devine being. The multiverse hypothesis and string theory are mere decades old and are already showing results and potential.
User avatar #70236 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
But you cannot prove to me that Quantum Mechanics is infinite.

The fact of the matter is, is that at the end of the day, each finite thing (in this case, everything) would need to have a creator that is infinite.
User avatar #70240 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
But i can, quantum mechanics and vacuum states can cause virtual particles to infinitely pop in and out of existence from nothing, this has been demonstrated.

No it doesn't, there's no logical reason to assume that it needs to be a creator or that it needs to be infinite, all it needs to do is show how arbitrary time is and that cause and effect can be violated which quantum mechanics shows.
User avatar #70250 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
Not to but in but I was curious if you were still online and saw this. I'd like to point out that the universe would've had to come out of ex nihlo but the particles have a something to pop into existence for. If what I said makes sense.
User avatar #70253 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
That's more of a semantic issue. Whether or not it's from a philosophical ex nihilo or a zero-energy it remains a fact that it violates the law of causality which is enough to get a universe out of "nothing"
User avatar #70254 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
I'd say not. The difference between particles popping into existence now and the 'beginning' of the universe is a large difference. The quantum vacuum you refer to still has a level of energy. It is the difference between the vacuum of space and a room on earth.
Again, not trying to undermine your point, the comparison IS there, but the to say it's the same as a zero energy is false.
User avatar #70261 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I could try, but since the arguments are ones i probably agree with a lot it's probably not going to be easy for me.
User avatar #70264 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
good point. I should ask thread.
I'd still value your input anyway
User avatar #70258 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I never stated that a zero energy and ex nihilo are the same. But what i am saying is that a zero energy universe is a default position where a universe can arise from through quantum flunctuations and therefor violate causality.
User avatar #70260 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
okie
anyway, is it okay if you critique the thing I wrote? I like input
User avatar #70243 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That still doesn't prove to me that they have been popping into existence for all of eternity.

I don't understand what you mean here. If something has not existed for eternity, then surely something would need to create it.
User avatar #70246 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
What matters is that they violate causality, so a universe can arise from virtual particles that pop out of nothing, principles such as finite do not apply to something that violates the law of time.

No, that's based on the assumption that time is completely linear, we now know how that time is a physical entity that can be bend, disorted and stopped. And with quantum mechanics we are finding out how completely weird time truly is. Unless you actually understand how time and physics work then we can talk again about causality.
User avatar #70247 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1.) A god itself violates causality.

2.) You make a good point. But you still don't answer how something "popping" into existence distorts time.
User avatar #70386 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You clearly don't understand what energy fields are it seems. A zero energy universe is nothing and violates the law of time and causality.
User avatar #70387 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already explained to you that they describe what is going on from what we can perceive in our own universe.

They do not explain whether or not they come from nothing or if they come from some unobservable source.
User avatar #70381 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields, which is nothing. Open a physics book for once.
User avatar #70383 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You do realize that these energy fields only describe what is in our universe and don't indicate whether or not they appear from something beyond our observance?
User avatar #70378 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Why do you assume my argument has no basis? That makes no sense, all i'm saying is that virtual particles violates causality therefor your simplistic idea of cause and effect that requires a god is unnecessary.
User avatar #70380 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Because you cannot prove that virtual particles violate causality because you cannot prove that they come from nothing.

That's why I am trying to say. You can't prove that they come from nothing just as you can't prove that they come from an unknown dimension/universe/the future/the past.

As you can see, you don't have enough of a basis to make such pronouncements.
User avatar #70335 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF THEY COME FROM NOTHING OR NOT WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THEY VIOLATE THE LAW OF CAUSALITY MAKING GOD UNNECESSARY.
User avatar #70376 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Are you dense?

Yes it does. Because if you can't prove that the virtual particles come out from nothing, then your argument has no basis. Nothing is infringing causality because you cannot prove that anything does.
User avatar #70249 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Irrelevant to my point, the fact remains is there is something that violates causality which we have proven to exist where as there is no evidence of god.

Because it pops in and out of existence from nothing, this violates causality and thus time. As for disorting we can disort time even without quantum mechanics through very simple principles such as time dilation, in fact it's theoretically possible to stop time entirely inside a black hole due to this phenomenon.
User avatar #70269 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
There is no evidence that these particles pop out of existence from nothing*

In fact, I could easily state that these particles appeared from different universes/dimensions with total randomness.

The fact of the matter is that you are using things that are just as substantiated as God.

Do virtual particles exist? Yes

Do they come out from nothing? No evidence.

Does God exist? Logically, yes.

Do we know of God's agenda, motives, appearance, etc.? No.
User avatar #70267 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
There is still no evidence that there particles pop out of nothing.
User avatar #70255 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltimetens
#70187 - Exactly. These "Gods" are molded over mille…  [+] (27 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70195 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Any smart atheist doesn't go "god doesn't exist!!!!!1111 I know!!!!111", they don't need to believe in a God because they have been given a lack of evidence to do so.
User avatar #70270 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
"reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltimetens"

I had to go to a Taekwondo class.

Luckily, that gave me enough time to think of a rebuttal.
User avatar #70198 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
The thing is, I don't need to believe in anything.

Regardless of how much evidence a certain aspect of life has, I don't need to believe it.

Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter.

But I choose to believe in all of those things because I believe that keeping an open mind is a pseudo-necessity.
User avatar #70206 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
"Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter. "

No you aren't using my mindset at all, science and mathematics are about evidence, the existence of God has no credible evidence therefore it is a belief.

I'm not even an atheist, im an agnostic deist/theist
User avatar #70220 - teoragnar (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually you can't prove that anything is even real, you just assume it's real.
User avatar #70226 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay man, sure.
User avatar #70194 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
And also, why do you believe there is a heaven and hell? Why does a so called supreme being need those? Just to torment people?
User avatar #70190 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Okey, so you're deist. I don't deny that there is one, I just don't believe, because I don't have any reason to so, as I don't think that this world is a enough prove for him being there, but it is still a possibility.
User avatar #70196 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That's a good start, but it's still an illogical perception.

If you genuinely think that there is a possibility of a God, then what is there to lose when you believe in him?

Don't you think it is strategically in your favor to believe than disbelieve? I mean, I already explained to you what the possibilities are when you are an atheist vs. when you are a deist.
User avatar #70209 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually there are MANY religions and based on what some say, if you don't believe in the right one you go to hell.

Also, just being a deist doesn't mean going to Heaven for almost all religions, you actually have to follow religions like Christianity and Islam. And again, you are taking a big chance since there are so many, it is just illogical to do so.
User avatar #70197 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
What do I have to lose? I also can't just "start" believing out of nowhere, as for me, there is nothing to believe.
User avatar #70199 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm saying that it is strategically disadvantageous to disbelieve than believe.

It's like saying that you would rather die a brutal death or nothing over you winning a million dollars or nothing.
User avatar #70321 - dabeetus (05/31/2014) [-]
Yeah, but you don't know that if such a being that fits the concept of God exists, what they will do to those who believe or disbelieve in a concept that is similar to the existing "God". The "God" could punish those who believed in it because their reasons to believe could seem foolish to "God". The "God" might not even determine their fate based on that, instead on good deeds or success in life.
User avatar #70203 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
At your point does it seem that way. Why do I even "need" to believe? Why does a supreme being even care?
User avatar #70205 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Well, like I said, if you use that argument to support your disbelief, then I can use that very same argument to support my ignorance.

Why does the universe care if I believe in Newtons Law of Motion? Why do the animals care if I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Obviously, I believe in both of them. But at the end of the day, I don't need to believe in anything. That doesn't mean that it isn't better to believe from an intellectual standpoint.
User avatar #70211 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I can't simply understand why a God would create everything, and if they didn't believe that he did, he would punish them for all eternity. What about kids that didn't get the chance to grow up and believe? What would happen to this person? livingasariver.com/elements/consciousness/split-brain-with-one-half-atheist-and-one-half-theist/comment-page-1
User avatar #70213 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, but that is such a brash and uneducated argument.

To answer your question...

WE DON'T KNOW!

Like I said, I am only here to argue that there is a God. No more, no less. I am not here to dispute the motives of that God, nor am I here to debate the philosophy of this God. I am only here to say that this God exists.

Furthermore, why do you resort to oversimplification? If a God does in fact judge humans, then why can't you consider the fact that perhaps there are various forms of judgement that accomodate different people?

This is not like the U.S Judicial System where all court cases are ruled evenly. I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently.
User avatar #70227 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Why is it an uneducated?

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has.

"I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently."

Why do you believe that? Has God told you that he does so?
User avatar #70231 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Because omniscient implies that that God knows every single thing and all of its forms plus all of the things that will never exist.
User avatar #70241 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
I asked why would he judge everyone individually.

I accidentally cut a part of the my sentence above. It should be:

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has to believe.
User avatar #70210 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
belief =/= proven scientific concepts

Jesus christ man.
User avatar #70216 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Except I have already given you an abundance of logical chains of thought that you continue to deny.
User avatar #70222 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
bhahahaahahahahaahahaahahaahaahaahahaah, I too LIKE YOU believe that some sort of creator/something exists. However I "believe", are you implying you can prove he does with "logical chains of thought"
User avatar #70228 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Of course.

I don't get how that is worthy of ridicule as that is how almost everything that cannot be seen/observed in some way, shape, or form is explained.
User avatar #70414 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/31/2014) [-]
so... can you?
User avatar #70237 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Go Ahead prove it to me then. After all I'm on your side in belief. However someone else would have to attempt to debunk.
User avatar #70256 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm also waiting for this when you get the chance.
#70183 - I made a mistake as well. In my previous comment, I meant to s… 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70182 - It's not even about belief. It's just blatantly obvio…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70192 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay wait, wait, wait. You just went from talk-able to, to "God existed infinitely many years before the first human being walked on the face of the Earth. ". Think about that, not saying it's wrong but you did go a giant step without giving any proof.
User avatar #70201 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Read my other comment.

If you are not infinite, then you are simply not a God because you could not have created all that is in existence due to the fact that you yourself must have been created.
User avatar #70188 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
If it's blatantly obvious we should have blatantly obvious evidence.
#70179 - Oh and I'm guessing that you assumed that I am a Christian. I'…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70180 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, my mistake.
User avatar #70183 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I made a mistake as well. In my previous comment, I meant to say that those Gods are ILLOGICAL.
#70178 - Those Gods are logical. Ancient Gods are almost alway…  [+] (34 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70184 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
"Who is to say that those God's aren't just different versions of the same God?"

Well, It's said that Nordic Mythology stems from older Indians mythologies, so they can have the stemmed from the same mythology and then have changed over the years.
User avatar #70187 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Exactly.

These "Gods" are molded over millenia to fit a certain group of humans' unique and invididual societal standards.

I don't believe in human like Gods because people that insist God created us in his image are just as arrogant as those that entirely adamant that God does not exist at all.
User avatar #70195 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Any smart atheist doesn't go "god doesn't exist!!!!!1111 I know!!!!111", they don't need to believe in a God because they have been given a lack of evidence to do so.
User avatar #70270 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
"reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltimetens"

I had to go to a Taekwondo class.

Luckily, that gave me enough time to think of a rebuttal.
User avatar #70198 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
The thing is, I don't need to believe in anything.

Regardless of how much evidence a certain aspect of life has, I don't need to believe it.

Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter.

But I choose to believe in all of those things because I believe that keeping an open mind is a pseudo-necessity.
User avatar #70206 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
"Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter. "

No you aren't using my mindset at all, science and mathematics are about evidence, the existence of God has no credible evidence therefore it is a belief.

I'm not even an atheist, im an agnostic deist/theist
User avatar #70220 - teoragnar (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually you can't prove that anything is even real, you just assume it's real.
User avatar #70226 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay man, sure.
User avatar #70194 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
And also, why do you believe there is a heaven and hell? Why does a so called supreme being need those? Just to torment people?
User avatar #70190 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Okey, so you're deist. I don't deny that there is one, I just don't believe, because I don't have any reason to so, as I don't think that this world is a enough prove for him being there, but it is still a possibility.
User avatar #70196 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That's a good start, but it's still an illogical perception.

If you genuinely think that there is a possibility of a God, then what is there to lose when you believe in him?

Don't you think it is strategically in your favor to believe than disbelieve? I mean, I already explained to you what the possibilities are when you are an atheist vs. when you are a deist.
User avatar #70209 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually there are MANY religions and based on what some say, if you don't believe in the right one you go to hell.

Also, just being a deist doesn't mean going to Heaven for almost all religions, you actually have to follow religions like Christianity and Islam. And again, you are taking a big chance since there are so many, it is just illogical to do so.
User avatar #70197 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
What do I have to lose? I also can't just "start" believing out of nowhere, as for me, there is nothing to believe.
User avatar #70199 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm saying that it is strategically disadvantageous to disbelieve than believe.

It's like saying that you would rather die a brutal death or nothing over you winning a million dollars or nothing.
User avatar #70321 - dabeetus (05/31/2014) [-]
Yeah, but you don't know that if such a being that fits the concept of God exists, what they will do to those who believe or disbelieve in a concept that is similar to the existing "God". The "God" could punish those who believed in it because their reasons to believe could seem foolish to "God". The "God" might not even determine their fate based on that, instead on good deeds or success in life.
User avatar #70203 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
At your point does it seem that way. Why do I even "need" to believe? Why does a supreme being even care?
User avatar #70205 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Well, like I said, if you use that argument to support your disbelief, then I can use that very same argument to support my ignorance.

Why does the universe care if I believe in Newtons Law of Motion? Why do the animals care if I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Obviously, I believe in both of them. But at the end of the day, I don't need to believe in anything. That doesn't mean that it isn't better to believe from an intellectual standpoint.
User avatar #70211 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I can't simply understand why a God would create everything, and if they didn't believe that he did, he would punish them for all eternity. What about kids that didn't get the chance to grow up and believe? What would happen to this person? livingasariver.com/elements/consciousness/split-brain-with-one-half-atheist-and-one-half-theist/comment-page-1
User avatar #70213 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, but that is such a brash and uneducated argument.

To answer your question...

WE DON'T KNOW!

Like I said, I am only here to argue that there is a God. No more, no less. I am not here to dispute the motives of that God, nor am I here to debate the philosophy of this God. I am only here to say that this God exists.

Furthermore, why do you resort to oversimplification? If a God does in fact judge humans, then why can't you consider the fact that perhaps there are various forms of judgement that accomodate different people?

This is not like the U.S Judicial System where all court cases are ruled evenly. I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently.
User avatar #70227 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Why is it an uneducated?

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has.

"I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently."

Why do you believe that? Has God told you that he does so?
User avatar #70231 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Because omniscient implies that that God knows every single thing and all of its forms plus all of the things that will never exist.
User avatar #70241 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
I asked why would he judge everyone individually.

I accidentally cut a part of the my sentence above. It should be:

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has to believe.
User avatar #70210 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
belief =/= proven scientific concepts

Jesus christ man.
User avatar #70216 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Except I have already given you an abundance of logical chains of thought that you continue to deny.
User avatar #70222 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
bhahahaahahahahaahahaahahaahaahaahahaah, I too LIKE YOU believe that some sort of creator/something exists. However I "believe", are you implying you can prove he does with "logical chains of thought"
User avatar #70228 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Of course.

I don't get how that is worthy of ridicule as that is how almost everything that cannot be seen/observed in some way, shape, or form is explained.
User avatar #70414 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/31/2014) [-]
so... can you?
User avatar #70237 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Go Ahead prove it to me then. After all I'm on your side in belief. However someone else would have to attempt to debunk.
User avatar #70256 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm also waiting for this when you get the chance.
User avatar #70181 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
"I don't believe that a God looks/thinks/acts like its creation in any way, shape, or form. "

Key word in this entire argument, BELIEVE
User avatar #70182 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
It's not even about belief.

It's just blatantly obvious.

God existed infinitely many years before the first human being walked on the face of the Earth.
User avatar #70192 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay wait, wait, wait. You just went from talk-able to, to "God existed infinitely many years before the first human being walked on the face of the Earth. ". Think about that, not saying it's wrong but you did go a giant step without giving any proof.
User avatar #70201 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Read my other comment.

If you are not infinite, then you are simply not a God because you could not have created all that is in existence due to the fact that you yourself must have been created.
User avatar #70188 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
If it's blatantly obvious we should have blatantly obvious evidence.
#70176 - I would say that Jesus was Middle Eastern with a light skin color. 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70175 - I have a some questions to atheists. Why do you deny …  [+] (109 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70423 - acidjunk (05/31/2014) [-]
Shit doesnt seem logical
#70327 - dehumanizer (05/31/2014) [-]
because they are le edgy kids trying to get back at their parents for making them get up early on sundays
#70415 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/31/2014) [-]
I think this confirms that you are a troll too.
#70436 - anonymous (06/01/2014) [-]
Or autistic.
#70416 - dehumanizer (05/31/2014) [-]
proove it
#70320 - thedeadpidgeon (05/31/2014) [-]
I think you're getting confused between not having a belief in god and rejecting a belief in god. Let's say for the sake of argument that a god exists. There still isn't any evidence to believe in it. Nothing useful to extrapolate its desires or intentions. I would by all accounts live my life the same way I do now, because anyone who claims to know not only that there is a god, but also why it brought us here and what it wants us to do and what it will do us if we don't comply, is simply full of bullshit. The same can be said for someone who claims to know that no god exists, but until there is evidence of an existence of a god itself, any postulation having anything to do with what that means for us is just baseless speculation. That makes a belief in a god without any evidence null both scientifically and philosophically.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that i don't think there is anything wrong with believing a god could exist, but unless any evidence comes around to support its existence, attributing the origins of the universe to an all powerful being simply doesn't yield anything more for us than simply saying "I don't know." In fact, it could even take us a step back, because at least when we admit we don't know, we still believe that there is an answer out there to be had.

Sorry for rambling on. I'm trying to express my opinion at two in the morning. I hope that any god that may be in existence blesses you and that you have better sleep than me. goodnight.

Oh, and as for the last half of your post, I'm just ignoring pascals wager for the sake of both our jimmies.
User avatar #70277 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
I'll answer the last bit of you're post because I think the top half is pure nonsense.

I don't based my beliefs off what the possible consequences of them are. I base them off what I've seen evidence for. Someone telling me that if I don't believe in God I'll go to Hell does not make me go 'Oh, I better start believing then'. Nor should it for you. That's a massively flawed reason for believing in something.
User avatar #70278 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
It's not even about Heaven or Hell.

It just doesn't make sense to reject a God.
User avatar #70281 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
The entire second half of your post was about the consequences of believing vs not believing, which you stated are Heaven, Hell, or neither. So how is it 'not even about Heaven or Hell'?

How so?
User avatar #70282 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You said the firt have is "pure nonsense"

Like I said, despite the evidence for God being relative to the evidence for a Fairy/Unicorn, a God actually means something whereas it doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a unicorn.
User avatar #70284 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
And it was. I guess we're gonna complete divert from the Heaven/Hell point right? What a surprise.

Explain how it doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a unicorn, and how this is not also true for a God.

Atheists compare God to unicorns to a point. There is no evidence for the existence of a unicorn, which is probably why most don't believe in them. There is no evidence for the existence of God, so you should treat him as you do the unicorn.
User avatar #70287 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
prove a point*
User avatar #70285 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Okay, I understand your point.

But you're missing a key factor.

The existence of a unicorn is not significant; it doesn't yield any worthwhile explanations for the universe's most fundamental questions.

The existence of a God, for instance, does answer the universe's most fundamental questions.

Therefore, believing in a unicorn is useless. You can choose to believe it if you want, but that wouldn't mean anything.


Basically what I'm trying to say is that if a unicorn exists, then that's cool and all but it doesn't provide us with answers.
User avatar #70291 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
It is also irrational to believe in something just because it answers a question you have. Sure the idea of a God does answer questions, but that by itself doesn't make it a valid answer, or have any effect on whether or not it's true. You need evidence to prove that your answer is correct.

So, the fact that the existence of something doesn't answer any big question doesn't make it any less rational, and the fact that something does answer that question doesn't make it any more rational.

So again, if we're using evidence to decide what we should believe in, both the unicorn and God should be looked at the same way.
User avatar #70292 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually it does.

If you use a series of logical chains, then you will find that the only solution to this dilemma is a God.
User avatar #70294 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
So you're saying the simple fact that an idea answers a question automatically makes it the correct answer?

Explain and provide evidence for this 'solution'.
#70186 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Because there is no evidence for god. And whether or not god explains questions i not a logical reason to accept it as true. I can say that the magical god fairy explains the most fundamental questions but whether it's true or not is completely independent.

Also what you're using is pascal's wager which is a deeply flawed argument because it creates a false dichotomy. (refer to picture)
User avatar #70234 - teoberry (05/30/2014) [-]
that graph is #interesting and #neat
User avatar #70251 - teoragnar (05/30/2014) [-]
A bit wrong tho.
User avatar #70308 - teoberry (05/31/2014) [-]
but still #neat
User avatar #70257 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I guess it's too general to be fully right.
User avatar #70215 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure the one for Judaism is wrong. I was not taught anything about purgatory then nothing. Any sources for this?
User avatar #70191 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Except you're missing the big picture.

You're still stuck to that false image of what God is. God, for all intents and purposes, is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent supreme being that is responsible for the existence of anything and everything.

If a "fairy" fit all of those criteria, then for all intents and purposes, that fairy is God.


Therefore, your "no evidence" argument is invalid.
User avatar #70217 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
You completely ignored the fact that kanade proved you wrong about the whole "why not believe"/pascal's wager
User avatar #70219 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
It actually hasn't proven me wrong.
User avatar #70223 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I've shown how pascal's wager is a false dichotomy. There isn't just a negative/neutral and positive/neutral option. The wager spans over hundreds of thousands of religions and depictions of god.
User avatar #70225 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Who says I believe in a particular religion. That is why I have completely ignored that argument. It doesn't apply to my beliefs.

There doesn't have to be an afterlife for there to be a God.
User avatar #70235 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Completely irrelevant, your deistic god is as equally possible as a christian god or an islamic god. If the islamic god appears to be true you will be send to hell because you believed in a deistic god thus losing the wager.

And the fact that a deistic god does not need an afterlife destroys your entire argument since choosing to believe in a god doesn't quarantee heaven/hell.
User avatar #70239 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1) Actually, it is entirely relevant as one could easily spot loopholes in a religious-based deity. However, it is impossible to undermine a God not affiliated with any particular religion.

2.) That's only one portion of my argument. Even still, you're wrong because I simply stated that there doesn't need to be an afterlife. That doesn't mean that there isn't.
User avatar #70242 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Many of these loopholes can generally be debunked pretty easily, it doesn't make your deistic god any more plausible.

The chance of the god having an afterlife and having no afterlife is equal, hence your false dichotomy of negative/neutral positive/neutral is false as the wager is equally high, that's even ignoring the dozens of other gods that we can wager on.
User avatar #70244 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1.) Yes it does, because if I can pinpoint a loophole/fallacy in all religious-based deities, then that would make a non-religious deity more plausible.

That's like saying that if Albert's theory has a loophole, then that doesn't make Newton's impossible-to-undermine theory any more plausible. You are associating a possibility and a non-possibility with each other.

2.) Where is your proof that the possibility is equal?
User avatar #70248 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
If you can do that you might, but you can't. I'd love to see you try.

Since both a god with an afterlife and a god without an afterlife have equally amount of evidence of them existing it's only mathematically logical that their possibilities of either is equal.
User avatar #70268 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I just did. Christianity is full of loopholes. Please look them up yourself.

Except you can't use math to justify that.

It's like saying that there is a mathematical 50% chance that there is an apple in my hand.

You don't have enough variables to make a mathematical probability.
User avatar #70233 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
what kinda circular logic are you fucking using dood?

"Believe in God? If you are...

Correct: Heaven

Incorrect: Nothing

Don't believe in God? If you are...

Correct: Nothing "

This was shown to be stupid so you say it doesn't apply to you, then don't fucking use it. Plain and simple.
User avatar #70245 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
You completely missed out, "dood"

I said that if you want to argue on the basis that there is no afterlife, then that still does not undermine my beliefs.
User avatar #70193 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The fact that you describe your god as omnipotent and omniscient is not evidence that he exists. That's circular reasoning.

You need to provide evidence for the existence of this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god.
User avatar #70200 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I didn't explicitly state that God exists.

I am merely saying that IF God exists, then that is the criteria that that God would need to accomodate. Otherwise, he/she/it would not fit the criteria of a God.
User avatar #70202 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The fact remains that there is no evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient god. Just like there is no evidence of a life creating potent deity, justlike there is no evidence of an anthropomorphic god, just like there is no evidence of fairy tales.

No matter what criteria you apply to it you're not making it any more true, you still require evidence.
User avatar #70204 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
The issue with people that claim that there is no evidence for God is that they consistently provide alternatives for the creation of the universe.

What they don't realize is that there "alternatives" are just as substantiated by physical evidence as the belief in God.

I'm not providing you with emprical evidence, I'm providing you with a logical chain of thought that has only one definite solution.

All I am saying is that there is a God. I am not giving you its appearance, agenda, etc.
User avatar #70207 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
The issue with people that claim that there is no evidence for god is that there is no evidence of god.

As for alternatives there is far more evidence. We know how life developed through evolution which is backed up by evidence, we know how life started through abiogensis which is backed up by evidence, we know how stars and planets formed which is backed up by evidence, we know how the universe started by the big bang which is backed up by evidence and we even know how a universe can arise out of nothing through quantum mechanics which is backed up by evidence.

But even if these weren't the case, it's NOT up to me to provide evidence for an alternative explanation, it's up to YOU who makes the CLAIM that god exists to provide EVIDENCE which you fail to do so.
User avatar #70212 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay, I never denied any of those explanations. Evolution does not explain the big picture; it only explains how life itself began/changed over the course of time.

You also act as if evolution, planetary formation, etc. contradict the belief in God.

I believe in a God that created the universe and set its laws in motion. These laws include all of these that you described.

I was referring to ideas such as String Theory. When I ask any atheist about how they believe the universe formed, they bring up things like the multiverse.

Of course, I keep an open mind and I believe in the multiverse/String Theory. But the problem is is that they deny an idea that has just as much evidence as the ideas they applaud.
User avatar #70214 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I never said it contradicts the belief in god, what i'm saying is that it provides an alternative explanation that makes a belief in god unnecessary. Also evolution doesn't explain the big picture, but abiogenesis, star formation, big bang and quantum mechanics do. As for string theory/multiverse these are alternative explanations still in their proto-science days so they do not have any evidence so far indeed, quantum mechanics does however.

I don't really care whether you believe in god setting them in motion, what i care about is your evidence that god does so.
User avatar #70218 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That is still wrong.

Planetary/Star formation does not explain how the universe formed.


This shows that you lack the understanding of science as you would know that the universe did not have any stars/planets in its preliminary stages.
User avatar #70221 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Ugh are you an idiot? I used abiogenesis, star formation, big bang and quantum mechanics as an umbrella term for a timeline of the universe that explains the big picture, not just about how the universe arose.
User avatar #70224 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That's great and all, but that doesn't explain anything worthwhile. I know that already.

If you honestly believed (which I am sure you don't) that those have anything to do with how the universe arose/formed then I am sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Furthermore, I could easily say that theology is still in its "early phase".
User avatar #70230 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Quantum mechanics explain how the universe arised, the big bang explains how the universe expanded, star formation explains how the universe is in it's current state and abiogenesis explains how life formed from inorganic elements.

Theology has been going on for thousands of years and they have not once been able to show any shred of evidence of a devine being. The multiverse hypothesis and string theory are mere decades old and are already showing results and potential.
User avatar #70236 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
But you cannot prove to me that Quantum Mechanics is infinite.

The fact of the matter is, is that at the end of the day, each finite thing (in this case, everything) would need to have a creator that is infinite.
User avatar #70240 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
But i can, quantum mechanics and vacuum states can cause virtual particles to infinitely pop in and out of existence from nothing, this has been demonstrated.

No it doesn't, there's no logical reason to assume that it needs to be a creator or that it needs to be infinite, all it needs to do is show how arbitrary time is and that cause and effect can be violated which quantum mechanics shows.
User avatar #70250 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
Not to but in but I was curious if you were still online and saw this. I'd like to point out that the universe would've had to come out of ex nihlo but the particles have a something to pop into existence for. If what I said makes sense.
User avatar #70253 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
That's more of a semantic issue. Whether or not it's from a philosophical ex nihilo or a zero-energy it remains a fact that it violates the law of causality which is enough to get a universe out of "nothing"
User avatar #70254 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
I'd say not. The difference between particles popping into existence now and the 'beginning' of the universe is a large difference. The quantum vacuum you refer to still has a level of energy. It is the difference between the vacuum of space and a room on earth.
Again, not trying to undermine your point, the comparison IS there, but the to say it's the same as a zero energy is false.
User avatar #70261 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I could try, but since the arguments are ones i probably agree with a lot it's probably not going to be easy for me.
User avatar #70264 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
good point. I should ask thread.
I'd still value your input anyway
User avatar #70258 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
I never stated that a zero energy and ex nihilo are the same. But what i am saying is that a zero energy universe is a default position where a universe can arise from through quantum flunctuations and therefor violate causality.
User avatar #70260 - theluppijackal (05/30/2014) [-]
okie
anyway, is it okay if you critique the thing I wrote? I like input
User avatar #70243 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That still doesn't prove to me that they have been popping into existence for all of eternity.

I don't understand what you mean here. If something has not existed for eternity, then surely something would need to create it.
User avatar #70246 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
What matters is that they violate causality, so a universe can arise from virtual particles that pop out of nothing, principles such as finite do not apply to something that violates the law of time.

No, that's based on the assumption that time is completely linear, we now know how that time is a physical entity that can be bend, disorted and stopped. And with quantum mechanics we are finding out how completely weird time truly is. Unless you actually understand how time and physics work then we can talk again about causality.
User avatar #70247 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
1.) A god itself violates causality.

2.) You make a good point. But you still don't answer how something "popping" into existence distorts time.
User avatar #70386 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You clearly don't understand what energy fields are it seems. A zero energy universe is nothing and violates the law of time and causality.
User avatar #70387 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already explained to you that they describe what is going on from what we can perceive in our own universe.

They do not explain whether or not they come from nothing or if they come from some unobservable source.
User avatar #70381 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields, which is nothing. Open a physics book for once.
User avatar #70383 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You do realize that these energy fields only describe what is in our universe and don't indicate whether or not they appear from something beyond our observance?
User avatar #70378 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Why do you assume my argument has no basis? That makes no sense, all i'm saying is that virtual particles violates causality therefor your simplistic idea of cause and effect that requires a god is unnecessary.
User avatar #70380 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Because you cannot prove that virtual particles violate causality because you cannot prove that they come from nothing.

That's why I am trying to say. You can't prove that they come from nothing just as you can't prove that they come from an unknown dimension/universe/the future/the past.

As you can see, you don't have enough of a basis to make such pronouncements.
User avatar #70335 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF THEY COME FROM NOTHING OR NOT WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THEY VIOLATE THE LAW OF CAUSALITY MAKING GOD UNNECESSARY.
User avatar #70376 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Are you dense?

Yes it does. Because if you can't prove that the virtual particles come out from nothing, then your argument has no basis. Nothing is infringing causality because you cannot prove that anything does.
User avatar #70249 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
Irrelevant to my point, the fact remains is there is something that violates causality which we have proven to exist where as there is no evidence of god.

Because it pops in and out of existence from nothing, this violates causality and thus time. As for disorting we can disort time even without quantum mechanics through very simple principles such as time dilation, in fact it's theoretically possible to stop time entirely inside a black hole due to this phenomenon.
User avatar #70269 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
There is no evidence that these particles pop out of existence from nothing*

In fact, I could easily state that these particles appeared from different universes/dimensions with total randomness.

The fact of the matter is that you are using things that are just as substantiated as God.

Do virtual particles exist? Yes

Do they come out from nothing? No evidence.

Does God exist? Logically, yes.

Do we know of God's agenda, motives, appearance, etc.? No.
User avatar #70267 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
There is still no evidence that there particles pop out of nothing.
User avatar #70255 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltimetens
User avatar #70177 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Why do you deny the existence of Odin, Zeus, Ra, and so on?

In what way does a God explain the most fundamental question of the universe?

That is incredible poorly and short minded set up, and doesn't take any other religion into account. By that logic I should be out trying to get myself killed in battle/war, so that I could enter Valhalla and try to avoid dying of old age and sickness and avoid Hel.
User avatar #70179 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Oh and I'm guessing that you assumed that I am a Christian. I'm am not.
User avatar #70180 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, my mistake.
User avatar #70183 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I made a mistake as well. In my previous comment, I meant to say that those Gods are ILLOGICAL.
User avatar #70178 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Those Gods are logical.

Ancient Gods are almost always perceived as being human/anthropoidal. I don't believe that a God looks/thinks/acts like its creation in any way, shape, or form.

A God is beyond our comprehension.


Who is to say that those God's aren't just different versions of the same God?
User avatar #70184 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
"Who is to say that those God's aren't just different versions of the same God?"

Well, It's said that Nordic Mythology stems from older Indians mythologies, so they can have the stemmed from the same mythology and then have changed over the years.
User avatar #70187 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Exactly.

These "Gods" are molded over millenia to fit a certain group of humans' unique and invididual societal standards.

I don't believe in human like Gods because people that insist God created us in his image are just as arrogant as those that entirely adamant that God does not exist at all.
User avatar #70195 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Any smart atheist doesn't go "god doesn't exist!!!!!1111 I know!!!!111", they don't need to believe in a God because they have been given a lack of evidence to do so.
User avatar #70270 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
"reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltimetens"

I had to go to a Taekwondo class.

Luckily, that gave me enough time to think of a rebuttal.
User avatar #70198 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
The thing is, I don't need to believe in anything.

Regardless of how much evidence a certain aspect of life has, I don't need to believe it.

Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter.

But I choose to believe in all of those things because I believe that keeping an open mind is a pseudo-necessity.
User avatar #70206 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
"Using your mindset, I don't need to believe in science, mathematics, literature, art, or anything, for that matter. "

No you aren't using my mindset at all, science and mathematics are about evidence, the existence of God has no credible evidence therefore it is a belief.

I'm not even an atheist, im an agnostic deist/theist
User avatar #70220 - teoragnar (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually you can't prove that anything is even real, you just assume it's real.
User avatar #70226 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay man, sure.
User avatar #70194 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
And also, why do you believe there is a heaven and hell? Why does a so called supreme being need those? Just to torment people?
User avatar #70190 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Okey, so you're deist. I don't deny that there is one, I just don't believe, because I don't have any reason to so, as I don't think that this world is a enough prove for him being there, but it is still a possibility.
User avatar #70196 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
That's a good start, but it's still an illogical perception.

If you genuinely think that there is a possibility of a God, then what is there to lose when you believe in him?

Don't you think it is strategically in your favor to believe than disbelieve? I mean, I already explained to you what the possibilities are when you are an atheist vs. when you are a deist.
User avatar #70209 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Actually there are MANY religions and based on what some say, if you don't believe in the right one you go to hell.

Also, just being a deist doesn't mean going to Heaven for almost all religions, you actually have to follow religions like Christianity and Islam. And again, you are taking a big chance since there are so many, it is just illogical to do so.
User avatar #70197 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
What do I have to lose? I also can't just "start" believing out of nowhere, as for me, there is nothing to believe.
User avatar #70199 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm saying that it is strategically disadvantageous to disbelieve than believe.

It's like saying that you would rather die a brutal death or nothing over you winning a million dollars or nothing.
User avatar #70321 - dabeetus (05/31/2014) [-]
Yeah, but you don't know that if such a being that fits the concept of God exists, what they will do to those who believe or disbelieve in a concept that is similar to the existing "God". The "God" could punish those who believed in it because their reasons to believe could seem foolish to "God". The "God" might not even determine their fate based on that, instead on good deeds or success in life.
User avatar #70203 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
At your point does it seem that way. Why do I even "need" to believe? Why does a supreme being even care?
User avatar #70205 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Well, like I said, if you use that argument to support your disbelief, then I can use that very same argument to support my ignorance.

Why does the universe care if I believe in Newtons Law of Motion? Why do the animals care if I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Obviously, I believe in both of them. But at the end of the day, I don't need to believe in anything. That doesn't mean that it isn't better to believe from an intellectual standpoint.
User avatar #70211 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I can't simply understand why a God would create everything, and if they didn't believe that he did, he would punish them for all eternity. What about kids that didn't get the chance to grow up and believe? What would happen to this person? livingasariver.com/elements/consciousness/split-brain-with-one-half-atheist-and-one-half-theist/comment-page-1
User avatar #70213 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Sorry, but that is such a brash and uneducated argument.

To answer your question...

WE DON'T KNOW!

Like I said, I am only here to argue that there is a God. No more, no less. I am not here to dispute the motives of that God, nor am I here to debate the philosophy of this God. I am only here to say that this God exists.

Furthermore, why do you resort to oversimplification? If a God does in fact judge humans, then why can't you consider the fact that perhaps there are various forms of judgement that accomodate different people?

This is not like the U.S Judicial System where all court cases are ruled evenly. I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently.
User avatar #70227 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
Why is it an uneducated?

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has.

"I believe that if there is an omniscient God, then that God would surely know the most just form of judgement and thereby judge each individual differently."

Why do you believe that? Has God told you that he does so?
User avatar #70231 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Because omniscient implies that that God knows every single thing and all of its forms plus all of the things that will never exist.
User avatar #70241 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
I asked why would he judge everyone individually.

I accidentally cut a part of the my sentence above. It should be:

If we don't know, then why should we believe? What proof do we have that there is a heaven or hell? None whatsoever, and that takes away the entire premise that someone has to believe.
User avatar #70210 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
belief =/= proven scientific concepts

Jesus christ man.
User avatar #70216 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Except I have already given you an abundance of logical chains of thought that you continue to deny.
User avatar #70222 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
bhahahaahahahahaahahaahahaahaahaahahaah, I too LIKE YOU believe that some sort of creator/something exists. However I "believe", are you implying you can prove he does with "logical chains of thought"
User avatar #70228 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Of course.

I don't get how that is worthy of ridicule as that is how almost everything that cannot be seen/observed in some way, shape, or form is explained.
User avatar #70414 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/31/2014) [-]
so... can you?
User avatar #70237 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Go Ahead prove it to me then. After all I'm on your side in belief. However someone else would have to attempt to debunk.
User avatar #70256 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
I'm also waiting for this when you get the chance.
User avatar #70181 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
"I don't believe that a God looks/thinks/acts like its creation in any way, shape, or form. "

Key word in this entire argument, BELIEVE
User avatar #70182 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
It's not even about belief.

It's just blatantly obvious.

God existed infinitely many years before the first human being walked on the face of the Earth.
User avatar #70192 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay wait, wait, wait. You just went from talk-able to, to "God existed infinitely many years before the first human being walked on the face of the Earth. ". Think about that, not saying it's wrong but you did go a giant step without giving any proof.
User avatar #70201 - alltimetens (05/30/2014) [-]
Read my other comment.

If you are not infinite, then you are simply not a God because you could not have created all that is in existence due to the fact that you yourself must have been created.
User avatar #70188 - kanadetenshi (05/30/2014) [-]
If it's blatantly obvious we should have blatantly obvious evidence.
#70169 - Is it accurate to claim that an infant/child is associated wit…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70208 - teoragnar (05/30/2014) [-]
Religion? No, religion is more than a certain concept of a god understanding.
Like for example Christianity is based on the revelation and sacrifices of Jesus, something like that has to be taught.
Religiousness? More likely, since in every culture ever religions have developed either in natural forms (paganism) or in form of revelations (Judaism) or in form of reformation (Zoroastrianism), so it's safe to assume that a certain tendance towards religiousness exist within humanity.
User avatar #70174 - christmouth (05/30/2014) [-]
They say that babies are born atheists, because that they don't have the understanding of what a deity is.

I think it's fair to say that they are so, because religion is more than just the believing, as It has rituals/rites and other things which these children often take part in.

Depends on personal beliefs, as you can still be Christian without having to be part of a group.
#36 - Sorry, but Asians haven't contributed anything near the level …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/30/2014 on white people 0
#45 - kresskh (05/30/2014) [-]
Okay then.
#14 - I'm interested to see what kind of humor this is.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/30/2014 on Mitch 0
#17 - anonymous (05/30/2014) [-]
Its a bunch of clever one liners strung together really well. 9/10 would laugh multiple times.
#322 - You're still wrong. I'm referring to the effect that … 05/29/2014 on sensible chuckle inbound 0
#177 - Wut? You said that it's not the drones themselves; it… 05/29/2014 on sensible chuckle inbound +1
#166 - I'm calling you an idiot because you're stating the obvious.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/29/2014 on sensible chuckle inbound 0
User avatar #167 - effort (05/29/2014) [-]
But it seems like the "obvious" isn't going through your head.
User avatar #177 - alltimetens (05/29/2014) [-]
Wut?

You said that it's not the drones themselves; it's the politicians.


Well no fucking shit. I'm arguing against this corruption as well as the program itself.
#163 - You think I don't know that? I'm arguing against the …  [+] (6 new replies) 05/29/2014 on sensible chuckle inbound +1
#307 - anonymous (05/29/2014) [-]
If you took away the drones then they would revert to conventional airstrikes.

Which have 15 times the collateral.

Now who's being unethical?
User avatar #322 - alltimetens (05/29/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

I'm referring to the effect that this program may have on the future.

Remember that this is all a big experiment by the U.S government. If the drones are going to be used, then new technologies that are just as collateral as conventional air strikes but present more effortlessness will be developed. Meaning more people will by killed and less regret will be felt.
User avatar #165 - effort (05/29/2014) [-]
Wow, getting too edgy for me now, calling people idiots.

Might as well ban the use of cars too.
User avatar #166 - alltimetens (05/29/2014) [-]
I'm calling you an idiot because you're stating the obvious.
User avatar #167 - effort (05/29/2014) [-]
But it seems like the "obvious" isn't going through your head.
User avatar #177 - alltimetens (05/29/2014) [-]
Wut?

You said that it's not the drones themselves; it's the politicians.


Well no fucking shit. I'm arguing against this corruption as well as the program itself.
#160 - Except the risk in this case does not outweigh the benefits. A… 05/29/2014 on sensible chuckle inbound +1
#158 - Listen, you have demonstrated total ignorance on the matter. …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/29/2014 on sensible chuckle inbound +1
User avatar #325 - samuraikuroda (05/29/2014) [-]
Theres a difference for fighting for a cause of independence and such. But attacking the innocent (which is not what americans did) and what 9/11 was, is a difference. And dont assume that i think america is innocent. The government is so corrupt and politically inept that the US debt is 17 trillion dollars. This has a very bad future for many americans. Most republics in history fail because of its domestic and political shortcomings, are we destined to as well? I dont know. I am not morally weak. I just believe in different ideas.
#3526 - Am I married to Jesus? 05/29/2014 on Your future wife/hubby 0
#3524 - **alltimetens rolled image **  [+] (1 new reply) 05/29/2014 on Your future wife/hubby 0
User avatar #3526 - alltimetens (05/29/2014) [-]
Am I married to Jesus?
#3522 - Comment deleted 05/29/2014 on Your future wife/hubby 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Comments(141):

[ 141 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #163 - joshlol, inventor of being lonely (12/21/2014) [-]
**joshlol waves at you**
User avatar #164 to #163 - alltimetens (12/21/2014) [-]
hey

i know nobody ever lived you before...


but i sorta like you
User avatar #165 to #164 - joshlol, inventor of being lonely (12/21/2014) [-]
I'm not worth liking.

But thanks, what's up?
#162 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
because you are new in the religion board, you must know what your enemy will do to your opinions

this is my first post in the religion board i talked with ethics and total respect and look what happened

www.funnyjunk.com/religion/54159#54159


now i am a troll who troll atheist trolls using their own logic and piss them off using their own life system and belief

new atheism =/= atheism

new atheism mean you shall be a total asshole against religion no matter how logical the answer is given

the board is full of heretics and you shall take care
#159 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
i see you are a christian who came for some question in the religion board, and all you saw is some faggots trolling and ************
User avatar #160 to #159 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not really a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic.
User avatar #161 to #160 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
and when you wanted answer, all you found is some new atheism bitches and cock sucking tranny faggots trolling you with nonsense
right?
#149 - anonymous (04/08/2014) [-]
hey your the guy from youtube
i like your videos dude
User avatar #154 to #149 - tranquilizer (04/20/2014) [-]
He's not them
User avatar #155 to #154 - badmotorfinger (05/02/2014) [-]
get the euthanization needle. they're becoming aware.
User avatar #156 to #155 - tranquilizer (05/02/2014) [-]
Wait
Where did you come from
The future?
#157 to #156 - nickypickle ONLINE (05/23/2014) [-]
I dunno if all this charade about being the one on youtube or not is all part of a 'sekretu klub' thing but its really getting to the point where someone needs some answers

yes? no? why is this such an issue I dont understand
User avatar #158 to #157 - tranquilizer (05/23/2014) [-]
Where do you people keep coming from I'm scared ;_;
#143 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
And with the mildly aroused Karasu picture, I am finished. Sorry for the spamish stuff, but you did ask me to and they do make good reaction images.
User avatar #145 to #143 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
No problem, man.

I appreciate all these reaction pics. Fukken savin' all of em'. I'm glad there are others here who have enjoyed the same anime as I.
User avatar #146 to #145 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Might be an odd thing to say, but you might want to join Tumblr. A lot of us are actually males who enjoy certain fandoms and have deep discussions about them, especially with Yu Yu Hakusho.

Might I suggest Kill La Kill or HunterXHunter? The latter apparently takes place in the future of Yu Yu Hakusho. Of course, Inuyasha is said to take place in the past, with Kikyo being Raizen's original daughter.
User avatar #147 to #146 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
Damn... I better get watching.
User avatar #148 to #147 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Go for Inuyasha first. I feel like Yu Yu Hakusho took a lot from that show. "Ooohhh we're losing viewers during the Dark Tournament, better show them Kurama's true form!" Fricken love child of Sesshomaru and Inuyasha (Which given Sesshomaru's mother isn't entirely out of the question even though they are a different species). Also, character types for both Toguro brothers, Bui, Karasu, and others were in that show.
#142 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Sometimes I edit a strikethrough over the 'not' to make a joke.
#140 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#139 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This is my wallpaper and icon
#138 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This too.
This too.
#137 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#136 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
#150 to #136 - toguro (04/17/2014) [-]
You like telling everyone that don'tcha?
User avatar #151 to #150 - zafara (04/17/2014) [-]
Well, we were talking about Toguro anyway. You usually pop up whenever Toguro is mentioned, so I wanted to let him know that you would probably show up. I also wanted to warn him that you don't really watch the show and named yourself Toguro after something else so that they didn't ask you questions about Yu Yu Hakusho you don't know.

Basically, I wanted to save some time by warning him that while you have the name, you don't know the show.

You know what I'm trying to say?
#152 to #151 - toguro (04/17/2014) [-]
Yeah I understood the 4th time you did it - I dont mind really
User avatar #153 to #152 - zafara (04/17/2014) [-]
I didn't think I was mentioning you that much. Sorry.
#135 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This works as a good, I am mildly confused and/or disturbed by what I see
#132 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#130 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#129 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Remember this scene?
Remember this scene?
User avatar #134 to #129 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
this **** was creepy
User avatar #144 to #134 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Yep. You know what's even more creepy? Elder Toguro decapitated himself into a small aquarium and swam around in there as a head for a while without anyone really noticing.
#128 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
When someone doesn't get the joke and gets offended so you have to explain it.
#127 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 141 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)