roronoa3000
Banned
Thats nice.
If a God Exists.......
- Thread starter Big Poppa Pump
- Start date
- Status
Thats nice.
So you're open to the idea of real life unicorns, Godzilla and Gobots? If not, are you religiously opposed to their existence even though there is absolutely no proof that they exist?
It is just as fairy-tale-ish as me saying there are intelligent invisible dragons that control congress, or that Panda bears control the weather. Are these things possible? Well yes I suppose they are as we can not disprove them. We can however show through scientific theory, repeatable experiments, and measurements, that the probability of them being true is beyond infinitesimal. Are Vampires real? Werewolves? Maybe, but probably not. The same goes for God.
roronoa3000
Banned
Who knew a pedophile could be so insightful.
Except that intelligent invisible dragons controlling congress is not a logical answer to any rational question, and I would say is scientifically impossible.
Much like the "big bang" theory. In fact, it is quite ironic that the "scientific" answer to the beginning of all existence actually contradicts science, while the concept of a God creating it does not. The "big bang" theory contradicts the laws of thermodynamics and a whole slew of other accepted science. The simple fact that thermodynamics states that matter can never be created, only transformed, completely dismisses a "big bang."
Science, however, does not and can not disprove the Divine creation of all matter; simply because God is not scientific. God is, according to the general concept of an ultimate deity held by most monotheistic faiths, not only above science, but created it along with everything else. God also could have created logic itself -- after all, how can something be truly inherent? Logic had to have been defined at some point as well. In another plane of existence could not 1 and 1 equal 27? Sure, it just doesn't in our plane of existence because our Earthly logic dictates that 1 and 1 makes only 2.
And if you think that it is impossible, you are simply not a very deep thinker. There is not a single logical flaw in the concept of a God as creator -- if you can name one, go ahead, because in all the literature I've read over the years, and discussions I've had, I have yet to see presented a flaw in the logical existence of a God.
And yet, in just a few words, I have already presented a logical flaw in the scientific explanation. One of countless.
Science is all about likeliness and evidence. Given the evidence, I simply have to conclude that belief in God is, ironically, the most scientific standpoint at this time. I just don't see how a rational thinker could possibly conclude that a decades-old theory constructed with outdated science, for which there is little to no evidence at all, is more logical than believing in a God as creator.
Personally I believe that people are inclined to convince themselves, above all else, that there is no God who might someday judge them for their hedonistic and reckless way of life. They seek reaffirmation in internet forums, literature, et cetera, from others that are similarly trying to convince themselves -- be it in the guise of science, logical thinking, philosophy, or just plain I-don't-give-a-shit-ism.
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
Nice. :glugglug: Don't get me wrong, I love science, but your right. Any cosmologist will tell you there are things they cannot explain. They will even tell you they have a name for it it's called a "singularity". Its right at the point where science can no longer explain the Big Bang. Right at the moment before it actually happens.
I see you've been reading your Creationism pamphlets. It's too bad that they didn't explain the difference between energy and matter...or that the Big Bang Theory itself doesn't address any particular origin theories. Many M brane theories cover your conundrum quite effectively, although none quite as conveniently as the idea of an all knowing, all seeing eternal god that created everything and, apparently, itself.
The beautiful thing about the scientific community is they are humbled by the universe...enough that they readily admit they aren't even close to knowing all the answers. That's why they tireless analyze, calculate, formulate, experiment and research knowing that their most likely goal is the success of find a new and even more complex avenue to explore.
I guess, to some, Stone Age, finite conclusions are still more palatable than the world's most intensive and thorough attempt at understanding.
Bullshit. If that was the case, the idiocy of Christianity would cover all bases. Do whatever you want and then "accept Jesus" when you get too old to misbehave. Besides, our own self-interest would be inclined to accept the idea of immortality and eternal bliss given to us for a rather brief sacrifice in the grand scheme of things.
The idea that a hedonistic and reckless way of life paves the way to damnation comes from the same novel that claims that mankind once co-existed with giants and that the ancestors of all life on Earth once inhabited a boat.
Is that what you believe? If so, you posting on a porn forum shows the blatant disregard to your soul and the blatant disrespect to your god.
Or are you going to disregard all the laughable characteristics of monotheism, but still determine the elements of righteousness? That's very practical. Practical and egomaniacal.
Genau. I hate my memory for betraying me so, but there is a wonderful book out there about scientists who had delved so deeply into quantum physics that some of them said they had "seen the face of God" hidden there in unexplored science. At any rate, there are endless amounts of similar stories available on the internet, if you know how to use Google.
I never understood the falsity that there is some "conflict" between religion and science. If anything, science and religion are nearly the same thing, and science certainly supports religion (well, the religion I'm familiar with at least -- Christianity. Obviously it would contradict Hinduism which asserts that rain is water being wrung from a goddess' hair, et cetera). Not only does science support Christianity, but the Christian scripture is absolutely full of science -- some if it many centuries ahead of its time. For example, Scripture describes perfectly the hydrological cycle, which was only discovered by the scientific community just 300 years ago. It states that air has weight, which was a conclusion that the scientific community had to make in order to define the hydrologic cycle -- which was all already stated in Scripture thousands of years ago. Scripture tells us that blood is the essence of life; that diseases are carried in the blood; that there are currents deep in the sea (which, interestingly enough, was precisely what motivated scientists to research this, finding it to be true); it even tells us that the Earth is a sphere (ironically again, the Bible never states that the Earth is flat; it was the scientific community).
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
Again don't get me wrong, but although I believe in God I don't put a lot of stock in Scripture. After all it was written by man. And almost the entire new testament was written well after the death Christ. But I did not know some of the scientific facts that you pointed out, it's very interesting. I've also heard that about quantum mechanics "Seen the face of God." Very cool.
Matter is energy; essentially there is no difference. Matter is a form of energy. And to be more precise, thermodynamics states that energy can not be created, or destroyed, only transformed; not just matter, as I had simplified.
At any rate, it really doesn't matter. Because all theories operate under the assumption that something already existed -- matter, space, logic -- which is an immediate fallacy. If something were to just "poof" into existence as the various theories would imply, not only would that be contradictory to science, but dare I say -- wouldn't that just prove God?
LaLiLuLeLohan said:
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I don't really have an interest in researching the shit out of all existence. If you do, that's fine.
LaLiLuLeLohan said:
I'm not at all sure what you mean by any of this. Feel free to elaborate if you want.
LaLiLuLeLohan said:
Exactly as I suspected -- another atheist with extremely limited familiarity with the theology he dedicates so much time to criticising.
Firstly, what makes you think that it is unlikely that many thousands of years ago one could find a 19-foot-tall man? Seems like a strange idea to mock, for someone who believes we came from simians in a period of time hardly longer.
I believe that the ancestors of all life (keeping in mind, of course, adaptation accounting for the spread and variation of those basic species over the period that followed) once inhabited a boat the size of a small town. You believe that the ancestors of all life were once bacteria. Probability...
Second, what sin I am committing discussing religion, be it on a porn board or elsewhere? I don't recall the teachings of Christ ever condemning pornography or sexual gratification, even then. I think you are confusing me with the media's portrayal of Christians as a worldwide legion of Ned Flanders'. Furthermore, if it is a sin, what am I to worry? All sin is forgiven, and do you think God would equate me watching free porn now and then with murdering or raping? Have some perspective.
This would be all well and true if it were thought that the big bang were the beginning of the universe which given current understanding, it isn't. The big bang is the point in which space in association with time or spacetime "expanded" into its current state.
The old "something from nothing argument" has been debunked so often it's actually quite amusing to see it cropping up once again, especially in the light of modern understanding of quantum theory. This time with a laughable "God is outside of science" argument added on in an attempt to weasel your way out of having to justify the actions of your creator.
Do you know why we've never been able to get something from nothing? It's because "nothing" as a concept doesn't exist. Is the space between Earth and the moon "nothing"? Of course it isn't, it's spacetime that's not nothing.
Yes! I love that answer!
Where are the Fossils? People also claim that there were bigfoots, sea-monsters, and flying dragons. It is unlikely because there is no evidence of anything like these things. Much like God.
It also states that the earth is the center of the universe and that the Sun and the stars rotate around it....:rofl:
The same reasons you state for why Leprechauns and invisible dragons are impossible are the reasons why god is impossible.
Here is my argument for why God can not exist, using examples, and without changing the subject to theories like the Big bang which is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not God exists.
I"d like to start by asking the following; why do people believe so strongly in their faith besides being raised in the dogma's environment? There is nothing to back up these believes other than the sales pitches of their religious leaders. No facts, no direct observations. No repeatable experiments. Just word of mouth. People believe in whatever they're told to believe. Ask yourself this; if you believe in a specific belief of another religion (for example, if you're Jewish do you believe Jesus was the son of god?). Assuming in this case you would answer negatively, then I would ask you whether you think you would believe that if you were born in a Christian country to Christian parents...
HERE are a few proofs that it is all malarkey
Creationism is often the root of the Religious persons faith structure. With the wealth of reasonable evidence concerning its infeasibility, I would start by including arguments concerning evolution, radiocarbon dating (as ridiculous as it may sound, many Christians and other religious types believe that the earth is 6000 years old).
I would be very interested in admission of evidence where creationism is given some theoretical weight, besides the bible or similar religious text.
Religion's roots are easily shown to be created by man. Examples of this might include (if challenged by a Christian) that the "devil" was not present in religious texts until the nomadic monotheists ran into polytheists and borrowed the idea.
Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. Example's of this include the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings of Muslims. Are [insert faith here] really that different?
Religious texts are made up and inconsistent, and can not be backed up by theory. In the case of the bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. There are massive plot holes, inconsistencies and illogical and impossible things.
Religion has been often used to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happened (which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates). What happens when we can prove, and you can't deny, the Big Bang theory and Evolution, which both have such large amounts of logic behind them that it's hard to deny that they are true.
When having this debate religious people often ask me, "What happens after death?" Many Christians try to use this argument to trick you into thinking you have to go to heaven. However, I approach this by relating this to something that has already happened. What happened before you were born? Nothing in the bible says anything about this.
I'd like to finish by asking a question to which any logical answer would disprove the existence of God;
If God wanted to, could He could create a box which He couldn't look into? Most people who believe in God believe that, by definition, God is omnipotent. There is no answer to this question that doesn't imply that there is something God cannot do, which goes against the very definition of said omnipotent being.
Except it's not "weaseling" by any means. No more than scientific theory is "weaseling". It is a rational theoretical suggestion, nothing more and nothing less. You just have to come up with a way to mock it because you have an irrational contempt for religion.
Debunked so often it's become amusing... so it's like the scientific community's "if there is a God why do people suffer". Do I never know what that's like. Except that question is answered with consistent rationalisation. The "something from nothing argument," as you call it, is not really "debunked" at all now is it? "Debunked" suggests that established facts are used to dismiss a notion. You are simply coming up with another baseless theory that works around the argument, which can't really dismiss anything, much less "debunk" it.
roronoa3000
Banned
My penis is erect.
That is all
That is all
pornophile
Banned
lmao fossils? There were several dozen nephilim. You expect it to be practical to expect fossils? You also assume that they would have to have been left in a condition in which fossils could be made. Most likely they would have been incinerated, not left in a field intact.
I see you have been reading your evilbible.com. Please source this statement.
Remember that next time you tout the old "universe is infinite" trash, lol.
Exactly. Why? This suggests exactly what Scripture will tell you -- that the knowledge of God is innate in all of us. That is, belief in God is our "default." It is the distancing of ourselves from religion that occurs as our beliefs change, not the opposite. We maintain that the very first homo sapiens (cave-men and what have you) had a religion. This is why.
Well done, you've pinpointed the one difference between science and religion. That's why religion is a faith and not (completely) a science.
Forgive me if I was unable to comprehend the point you are trying to establish here (I am not from an English-speaking nation) but if this answers your question -- my parents are of a different faith than me. I am a non-denominational Christian and come from a Catholic culture. I openly reject Catholicism as primitive, pagan and deceptive. Why? Because like a certain population of the human race I was born with the ability to think for myself. I already gave my reasoning in my original post for why I believe what I believe, and there are many more reasons I haven't given. Note that none of them have to do with the culture I was raised in.
Many people simply follow the faith of their parents. That's fine, what's wrong with that? To say that they should not believe what they believe, for the reasons they do, is oppressive and none of your business whatsoever.
Yes, that's embarrassing. Not because I fear being associated with those people; but because it shows how few people of any "faith" actually read the will of their God with any comprehension whatsoever. To insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old shows only absolute ignorance -- not just of science, but of the Scripture they allegedly believe in, because it never states this whatsoever.
Got Google? The fact that you haven't actually read any scientific evidence for Creationism only shows that you have once again not even minimally researched the concepts you're arguing against.
Interesting, because if you ask me, the devil still isn't in the Bible. Satan is, and he is the ruler of Hell, which is of course ultimate nothingness; as such, he is the ruler of nothing. Not the horned, bellowing fiend that was invented by medieval Catholics.
So has money, food, resources, recognition, and even science. When one wishes to control masses, they use what is called a scapegoat -- I thought this was common knowledge. Furthermore, don't blame a peaceful, beautiful text for the follies of corrupt politicians. They have nothing to do with each other.
And what, from a religious perspective, was wrong with the crusades? 200 years prior, muslims ravaged the East and destroyed and defiled Christian monuments, artifacts and holy sites. The crusade was to take them back. Oh, how horribly evil that is.
Where the actual evil comes in has nothing to do whatsoever with religion, and everything to do with personal gain. Thousands of rich merchants and nobles from all over the world -- many of them openly non-Christian -- took caravan with the crusades that they might take the opportunity of war in the East to take resources, land, and lives. Now, hundreds of years later, poor historians (not naming any names) conveniently can not tell the difference.
Go for it, this is always interesting. Not exactly original, but interesting.
Yes, as Scripture will tell you.
We've been waiting for that day for many decades now.
I'm sorry to hear that. It sounds like they can not fully grasp Pascale's Wager.
Yes it does. It states that we are in a similar form to that which we become after we die. From God's presence into life, and then finally we return to it when we have completed our destiny here.
Hahaha. Could God heat up a burrito so hot that He himself could not eat it! You have truly blown my mind.
Except that now we return back to my original point -- that you are facing a serious fallacy if you truly think you can define God (the creator of all science and logic and all that is bound to it) with the extremely limited logic we have been exposed to in our minutely short time here on Earth. The main flaw in this question (letting alone that it is simply a loaded question that has no actual relative meaning) is that it is limited by nothing but the words in which it is asked. The answer is neither yes OR no. Or, more accurately, it is both. Yes, God could create a box which He couldn't look into, and then look into it. You speak of science and how it is admittedly limited -- what makes you think now that your relatively nil understanding of science and logic on Earth can be extended to the most powerful and ultimate entity ever to exist?
While I am skeptical of that sort of thing, I know they really have uncovered the remains of massive swords before, 20 feet in length and several dozen pounds. Which makes sense considering the sword of a nephilim would undoubtedly be preserved and held somewhere among civilisation.
pornophile
Banned
That question doesn't make any sense. I could ask you "What is north of the north pole?" and since there is no logical answer therefore the north does not exist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
