>>683925921 I find it more logical to believe in a process of the big bang than a magical sky genie willing all of existence into being. Also, anyone with a high school education has at least a laymans understanding about the big bang.
I don't think it's entirely impossible, but currently there's no evidence at all so why should I believe? The same applies to almost everything, though. If god one day descends from the heavens and we can reach a consensus that it is indeed happening, why should I NOT believe?
Currently siding with the militant atheists though. Religion is disgusting and destructive, if it is organized and has any say in the actual real world politics/decision making etc.
IMO the only rational way at the moment god/gods could exist as they are depicted in the holy books is that the simulation hypothesis is real and somebody just created god to fuck with us or for some other reason. That actually scares me a bit.
One of my greatest fears is also that I convert to christianity out of fear when I'm about to die.
>>683926116 Do you understand quantum physics? Or whatever school of science that would be applicable to conditions prior to the beginning of the universe?
Do you understand RNA? Protein strings? Genetics?
There is so much at play that you and I can't possibly comprehend. If you want to talk about logic though, explain this:
>sky genie makes whole cosmos. stars, galaxies, planets, solar systems, moons, satellites, black holes, quazars etc instantly >spends 7 days on an insignificant mote of dust (before the sun was made, too. So not only did he do it in the dark, he did it in 7 days before 'days' were a thing). >im going to put tiny monkeys on this spec of dust >I will give them free will but only to do what I say or else i will torture them forever
Truly, if there is a God, he is the ultimate evil. How is it logical to even assume such a ridiculous character even exists? And why would it be logical to not hate him?
>>683926535 A belief based on happenstance is not logic. In no way is the big bang logical. Only until you get to the ideology of natural selection within ones own species does it become logical, and scientific.
>>683926744 >>683926744 It's only illogical because you'd have to think outside the box to even comprehend it. And by outside the box, I mean as far outside of the box as you can get. Outside the 'box' that our laws are contained within (this makes it a little difficult to be sure). The only people who say they know for sure how the universe began is religiousfags. Science does not even profess to have all the answers.
>>683926744 That alone is enough to refute the concept of adam and eve. It is theoretical science yes, but I still hold more "faith" in it than I do religion. Something good happens "It's a miracle", something bad happens "God works in mysterious ways". I would rather just cut out the middle man and believe in the universe itself and the intrinsic chaos it holds. I would rather not be an ant putting my hopes in the one with the magnifying glass.
I don't because I want to see proof. There's no reason for me to believe in any book such as bible Koran etc because it's been created by fellow men. I feel if God was real then he/she/it could announce itself to humans. On the flip side maybe you're supposed to have blind faith but if that's the case I'm not wasting my life abiding by rules in the hope it's gonna help. If I go to hell I'll deal with it then but in the meantime I want proof before I commit belief
Well that's a given, right? But I really do think that religion is destructive to society because it really is like a virus that kills rational thinking. I think that believing something with no evindence at all strips you of all credibility.
On another note, the amount of highly religious people in the US, especially on the higher ladders and scientific community is pretty disturbing ATM. It's a great example how NOT to build a society.
>>683926949 Oh, so it's an unfalsifiable hypothesises? Why didn't you say so? Isn't it convenient that God is just totally beyond any realm of logic and observation?
Or another one I love. When something shitty happens, like children die for no reason, or good people suffer, and it's always "God works in mysterious ways!" well no shit, if he's real, he's clearly fucking psychotic and beyond reason.
I don't know about you nerds but I'm not a religious person and I don't have a fedora to argue with which bible thumpers, but I think there's a God . Not a old bearded man, not a 8 armed blue elephant man, but a being far greater than out understanding , observing us.
>>683927466 Yeah but what am I looking for? I don't think there's a purpose to life. And I think the argument that you're born as part of a bigger reason is just an argument you can't win against. Religion just seems like god moding to counter everything. Literally just say god did this or that and no matter what you reply it's wrong
>>683927443 You are truly ignorant. Children die because you and I. God has no say in that do you even know what Christianity is? Fallen world ring a bell? Maybe free will? We are the cause of evil is if you are mad at anyone be mad at yourself.
Freedom of thought and therefore religion to me is absolute. But when the irrational way of thinking contaminates the levels of society on which the real world decisions and policies are made it starts to get dangerous. You know, like, making a huge environmental risk analysis and including a god in that? Shitty example, but there's a point.
I'm not saying that anybody has the right to ban religion, but I'm hopeful that in the future, as people get more educated and question the way religious argumentation work, religious people will eventually be the minority.
>>683928121 a choice is only a choice in retrospect. prior to that, it only exists as a concept.
you are in a state before you choose, and you are in a state after your choose. the state in which you are before your choice always occurs, but the 2 possibilities after your choice only exist in retrospect.
thus just as an electron exists as a probability wave, your choices aren't choices until they get made.
therefore if its a choice that is not compulsory to make, its not really a choice at all.
thus there are always 3 outcomes, not choosing, choosing yes, or choosing no. it is only that we imply that one must choose, that one fails to see the option of inaction.
im atheist myself but my friend believes in a god, but not your typical supreme space gandalf god, more of a galactic consciousness.
he said he recalled an article about how literally galaxies were being formed that resembled the same network structure as brains, and said he wouldn't be surprised if out of the uncountable number of those, that one was actually sentient and could think.
>>683927815 Go on a self journey try to seek scientific truth and or a God and decide for yourself. If you truly seek it you will find it. Don't let others lead you take it all with a grain of salt and discover yourself.
I do not blieve that there is a god, nor do i rule out the possibility. having a firm standing on science has made me realise that most of religion is bullshit, but there are some things that science cannot explain currently
whether we ever will know or not, is a different question
Yes I do. I am not practicing though. But a do find some solace in the fact that when I die there will be more than just a void. Albeit that be hell or heaven, anything is better than nothing. I didn't mention a religion because I don't really attach myself to one. I guess I would be Roman Cathoic because of my family. We go to church every christian holiday. But I only really go for my grandparents who are very religious, I wouldn't want to hurt their feeling.
believing in god does not require logic(al explanation)
I mean, if it could be sceintifically (i.e. logically) explained, you wouldn't need to believe it, you'd simply understand it from a sceintific point of view
personally, I'm not sure if I believe or not (wouldn't call myself agnostic either since I don't contemplate nor do I give much shit about religion), but sometimes it's hard to doubt god when everything goes downhills
>>683926423 >>683927677 Agnosticism is at its core a decision that there's not a point in thinking about God, because it's impossible to prove or disprove. You can't really be agnostic and atheist, because being agnostic means that you think there isn't a decision to make, whereas being atheist means that you think there is.
>>683928352 You are an ignorant fuck, as said earlier people in high positions may or may not be religious. This has no effect on how the person fufils their role. A good scientist religious or not is still a good scientist. You wishing others change to the way you believe is no better than wanting everyone to be white because you are white.
>>683925921 big bang is beginning of universe, not beginning of life on earth. Life on earth was cobbled together probably by years of lightning strikes and accidental nitrogen fixation, plus the occasional application of cosmic rays before the ozone layer made its way around to be a thing.
>>683926116 you need to study chemical biology to understand how we think life arose on the planet. There's some pretty solid evidence, if you make it deep enough into the field. There's an online course in which the instructor tells you about a piece of chemical that becomes the part of your DNA that hooks up to another chemical; it's called DAMN and it eventually turns into a key part of the nucleotide Adenosine. Like, the part that separates A from the other nucleic acids.
>>683928936 Wrong from first letter to full stop. "A" = without, "gnostic" = knowledge, "theist" = faith in god(s). If your answer to the question "do you believe in god(s)" is anything other than yes, then you are a (without) theist (faith). This includes agnostics because they do not answer "yes".
Science involves things you can hypothesize, test, prove, and repeat.
Coming up with theories about antimatter, or multiple universes, or whatever else, that's not science. That's more akin to philosophy than science.
Pro-tip: just because it's a secular explanation, doesn't make it scientific. If you believe "in the beginning, there was nothing, and then nothing exploded" that's just as religious as me believing "in the beginning there was nothing, and then God created everything". Both are beliefs in something supernatural and totally unprovable by science occurring to create the universe.
Atheism is not just the lack of belief in God. It's also the active belief in other supernatural occurrences to explain things. A pure lack of belief in God would just be agnosticism. But as soon as you say " I believe there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and then the earth formed, and then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and made mineral soup, and then the soup came alive" that's a religion. It's not science because it's all far outside the realm of things that can be experimented with, tested, proven, etc.
>>683929681 I know a lot about this my wife is a scientist. She has a doctorate in Chemistry and biochem... I do not argue that we are not made of these compounds... Life itself IE the origin of these materials had to be created atone point...
>>683929594 You realize that almost all the foundational breakthroughs of science were made by religious people because they were motivated to search for the order and logic that they expected in a created world?
This "hurr durr religion stifles science" crap needs to die. What next, you're going to mention the dark ages? Lol
Also, >implying there haven't been generations of corruption and hoaxes in the science field
>>683925583 science doesn't disprove itself; there are like eighteen different divisions within science, and all have different tenets. Biology claims that living things only come from living things.
How often do you see living things not coming from living things? Maybe once, at the beginning of life, some billions of years ago? That's a pretty good track record, that only the time when life was created was the time when it came from something non-living.
That also tells us something about life as a state: that it's an unusual one, and something to be rendered important with a capital I.
It doesn't disprove itself; science likes to allow special cases in an overwhelming sea of evidence to one trend just so that the one trend is taken care of and it leaves us to explain the outlying cases. That's how the scientific method works, and that's what it's supposed to do.
We still have a LONG way to go until we find the truth. We didn't yet go beyond 3D and there's some theories that say there's 26D. We can't say anything for sure right now. I just live my live whiteout caring about anything but I still seek the truth and hope the human race will someday discover it.
Yep. And regarding climate change: some day is not enough. We are literally balancing on the tipping point of no return. I can only imagine the famine and overpopulation problems in a hundred or 2 years if we don't actually start to do something.
The climate conference in paris 2015? Nothing was achieved.
>>683929845 That's not the way the words are used, which is a major portion of the meaning of a word that you're ignoring.
Atheist is typically defined as "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
I don't lack belief in the existence, I lack proof one way or the other. I also see no way to provide proof for either point, so the concept of God isn't worth considering as true or untrue.
The major difference in the ideas of an atheist and those of an agnostic are that atheists make a choice to claim that there is no such thing as a God, whereas agnostics say there is no point in making a choice because the whole argument is a waste of time and will get you nowhere. I don't lack faith, I lack a reason to consider the question.
>>683930417 Lol wait, so you're saying that there's a magical one-time exception to a fundamental law of science? Life can't arise from non-life, but it totally happened this one time, we swear. Only it was a super long time ago do don't worry about it, life totally doesn't arise from non-life anymore.
What a crock of bullshit. Just admit it. Your religion is that long ago and far away, a rock came alive, and that's your great great great great grand pappy
>>683930340 And by saying that, you are moving said posts. When people spend millennia studying and scrutinising the world and all it's wonders, and come up with brilliant solutions, answers and predictions to the nature of reality, it can automatically be refuted by the "God did it" argument, by virtue of being an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Literally something that can not be disproved because of the way it was written.
There is so much wrong with it, I don't even know where to begin. >I have a bag that APPEARS to be white, but inside is the best thing you can imagine! You can not see it, or hear it or feel it or smell it or taste it or detect it in any way, shape or form, but trust me, it's there. >and according to this object, the bag is not white. The thing inside the bag has made it look white to test you. The bag appears completely empty, but this is just another illusion of the object!
If I did this, I'd be called out for being fucking retarded.
>>683930844 What I said is that it means that life is a very unusual state.
Has nothing to do with it being a law of science; the law of science just illustrates how special a state something has to be in to become living. They've created cell-like structures in a lab out of the organic compounds they guessed were on the surface of the earth at the time.
They just put them in a thing that made a bunch of electric shocks and... waited.
Apparently, it being a special state means it needs millenia and repeated but plausible special situations to exist. Nowadays, there's not a likelihood that new life will arise because there's old life already.
>>683923384 Yes, I went through my edgey teens as a staunch atheist, now I'm kinda swinging towards the real attitude that there is a god.
It's hard to explain but I'll try. I have survived so many trials, so many instances that should have killed me. I'm still here.
It's not so much as blinded following the dogma of the church but the comfort and reassurance that I'm watched over.
The edglords can sneer all they want about how science actively counters the existance of God, well kids if you actively use science as a form of proof, you are using it wrong. Science is not the pursuit of killing gods, it's the undying spark of human creativity and curiousity.
>>683923384 I believe that "god" is just the collection all souls in the universe. We are "god" together, and it has NOTHING to do with any bible or scripture. We just exist and try to become purple. This is my belief, being raised as a christian my first 15 years, them became atheist until 18, then tried dmt and now this is what i personally believe because I saw it with my own eyes. I'm not saying that's the facts or whatever, but it's real enough for me.
>>683930038 yeah and when we figure out what happened to make that we'll know something worth re-evaluating the question of whether or not there's a God, but until then we should focus our efforts on attaining and defining information, not on blindly worshiping whatever seems right in the moment.
It's a waste of time to give it up to to a Creator when we could figure out what it is we're looking at. It's not like humans are insatiably curious people or anything...
>>683931057 So if you just let the pigeons step on the keyboard long enough, it's going to happen?
>millions of years did it >God did it Same kind of explanation anon. That's not science. Moving the problem long ago and far away doesn't solve the problem. The fact is that you still believe that an unbelievably complex code of life came about from some rain on some rocks and a bit of lightning. Is evolution some magical force that can actually create life from non-life? Evolution can create extremely complex codes of information? Again, sounds pretty religious to me
No..They are. Literally anything you say, and it's always just ANOTHER layer to the grand façade of God. For someone who wants to test the faith of his insignificant apes that inhabit a mote of dust, he sure does fucking try, doesn't he? Ever noticed that?
>6000 year old Earth >Carbon dating is there to test your faith! >dinosaur bones dated to 300,000,000 years ago >again, just an elaborate ruse >evolution >b-b-but that only explains how, not why! Aaaaand so on, so forth. I'm too tired to do this shit, but whatever.
I CAN see a world in which science and god can co-exist. It's just not the world we seem to be living in.
>just mentioning the word science
Well, I do have 5 years of scientific education and am currently doing scientific research (only as an assistant though) so I'd like to think that I'm doing a little bit more than just throwing the word around as an excuse for my 'ignorant beliefs'
>>683931133 So, is your argument that actually DNA isn't that complicated?
Are you retarded?
And see a post just below yours. The common theory about life starting is that there was a soup of minerals and shit and it got hit by lightning.
>>683931180 You talking about the miller urey experiment? Because you realize that all it did was create a few amino acids in a highly toxic sludge, and amino acids that weren't even in the right configuration for life? It was the equivalent of getting a hundred backwards B's and then claiming that's how the dictionary was made.
Also, even if they did create life in a lab, what does that prove? That a bunch of intelligent people designed a system and then directed things to create life.
I don't beleive in theory i.e god/creator or big bang, i don't feel the need to believe in a higher purpose, i beleive in making growth, because its the only thing that everything in the universe wants. I feel that i would b offending god/universe/us by settling for something that goes against learning/expanding/growingknowledge for meyself/universe I beleive anything and nothing at the same time but because there is anything, it all grew from some where so im gonna ride on that beleif and see where that takes me Don't do to others as u wouldn't be done to you. Simply avoid greed
>>683931847 Well compared to the complexity of space, yeah, maybe it's not all that complicated? I'm not saying for sure, and obviously to me, and every other human being, it's incredibly complicated, but under the right conditions, it just happens, obviously. It's not a miracle, if that's what you're suggesting.
And yes, primordial soup. But again, it's a little bit more than a pond getting hit by lightning.
>>683932104 Fortunately they don't just use carbon. All radioactive substances have half-lives, and they know them to a pretty good accuracy. Obviously once you get very little of a substance it's not very useful for dating materials, but there are a lot of them and their useful periods overlap, so they have a lot of ways to check the numbers. Creationist apologists like to use carbon dating as a stand in for all dating techniques and thus discredit all methods of dating any materials. Yet, inorganic materials can't be carbon dated since there's no carbon isotopes to date. So, other methods are used on other isotopes. They tend to ignore those or they blur the line between carbon dating and the other dating techniques. In general, it is a convient debate tactic to use with audiences that don't understand what carbon dating is (like you).
>>683931475 I don't care what other people somewhere else say. Of course there's lots of retards out there. So what? Why are you ranting about people who aren't even here in this discussion?
Christians who don't believe in dinosaurs are simply ignorant. There is a perfectly scientific and biblically-sound way to "believe" in dinosaurs and a young earth.
And no, carbon dating or other radiometric dating methods don't prove shit. They are wildly inaccurate, and based on several unproven assumptions. There have been cases where they go and date a brand new lava flow of rock from a volcano that erupted in the 70s and it radiometric dates between like 100,000 and 100,000,000 years old. Seriously, go look into radiometric dating and you'll see that it's hardly solid proof.
>>683931319 pretty close to me Sir. I lost my christian belief long time ago. I would go as an agnostic not an atheist. I think there is some entity. I f there is 1 god and many individual souls or that all living thinks build 1 solid entity i don`t know. But lately i`am reading the Koran and have to admit that stuff is legit, especially when it comes to what corrupts people or societies. Most people(even muslims) don`t know anything about that or just tell wrong allegations. Don`t mix up arabic traditions with that it`s definitely not the same
>>683932107 It was whilst studying my biology degree I was awoken to the idea, it's just Illogical that such a complex operation happens on a random scale. Creationism and Adam and Eve is the earlier civilisations trying to muddle through the world and like now it was the most complete infomation they had.
Now we know more, I'm even more resolute that it isn't just a random event following on from millions of years of chance. Christianity and most Abrahamic religions aren't 100% true but like any modern school of science it's all theory until you can create a repeatable experiment to disprove or prove it
>>683932103 Space is not a complex code of information that governs life forms. It's just a bunch of masses floating around orbiting each other.
And either way, if you believe that somehow space is more complicated than DNA, then you still believe that the complexity of space came into being from a random explosion of nothing.
"Under the right conditions, it just happens". Anon you have a religion right there. It is a miracle that you believe in.
You can fluff it up as much as you want, but the whole primordial soup crap boils down to the earth was hot rocks, the rocks cooled down, it rained on the rocks, made minerals erode into the water, and then lightning hit the ponds and shit and it came alive.
>>683932273 You read this >>683932276 Now you are the one who doesn't understand... There is NO way to 100% prove that any dating method is accurate at all... Technically we cannot even prove that Christopher Columbus even existed let alone an accurate date on a dino fossil...
>>683932273 No, creationists don't ignore other radiometric dating methods.
The same flaws exist in all of them:
1) they need to assume that they know the original amount of the isotope in whatever the material is 2) they need to assume that the decay rate has always been the same 3) they need to assume that the specimen was at equilibrium 4) they need to assume that no isotopes were gained or lost due to contamination
Not to mention the fact that like I mentioned above, there are plenty of cases of using radiometric dating methods on things that we know the age of, and they come up with wildly inaccurate dates.
>>683927614 so a god is just an alien who is watching us? that's not really what a god is in the sense of this discussion... a god would be an entity which judges us and has something to do with an afterlife
>>683933054 yeah, i saw your shit post. you're a complete retard. stop reading dr dino and listening to kent hovind, you complete retard. there's a reason they have no published scientific papers on creationism in non-religious publications, and instead resort to giving powerpoint speeches to masses of retards like yourself.
>>683931847 from what I know, there was a lot of toxic things involved with the creation of major chemicals... Cyanide is one of the major building blocks of the adenosine, if you're looking at it without enzymes.
>>683933389 wildly inaccurate for ONE fucking method, you retard. that's why they use multiple methods. it's sort of like giving you an intelligence test and you do well on it, and then we give you a bunch more and it turns out you're a complete retard on all of the rest of them.
>>683934037 >no published papers >in journals run by people like you who would never let a creationist article be published >lol you guys don't publish anything
Good logic there fella. That's like being in 1960s Soviet Union and saying "comrade, if capitalism is so great, why are there never any articles from our glorious people's university about how bad communism is? This is surely proof that communism is the best!"
>>683931465 Yes, and yes. RNA/polymer world has given very direct glimpses of creating life from non life. 200bp of RNA evolved in a lab can replicate itself, even less if you combine night/day cycles. That's base of evolution, everything else just falls into place.
Ever heard of promiscuous intermediates? Yes, evolution can create complex and orthogonal codes over periods of time when there is varying selective pressure.
>bbbbbut anon it's not proven
RNA world still exists fucking everywhere. Why is the catalytic core of a ribosome RNA? Catalytic core of RNAseP? Why can we take consensus sequences of tRNA UTRs and create viable ribozymes? Why is there such conservation in RNA structure that an IRES can function in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells? Why are DNA polymerases of different classes between those 2 cells? Why do we only have 20 amino acids? Everything goes back to RNA. It's the smoking gun of the origin of life.
They get a broad range of dates using different methods, and then the choose the "most likely date" based on the theory. Then they will use that dating "evidence" as proof for the theory.
If you have a theory that says a certain rock is 2 billion years old, then you date it by five different radiometric methods, and get dates of 100,000 years old, to 50,000,000 years old, to 1.7 billion years, to 2 billion years, and 2.7 billion years, then you say "well we believe the date of 2 billion years is most likely to be accurate". Then, later, if someone questions how old that rock is, and questions your theory, you'll say "see, we dated it as being that old, that's proof!"
Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.
>>683929845 The guy you're trying to correct was spot on actually. Stop trying to bolster your numbers by recruiting Agnostics without their consent. Atheism originally encompassed anyone who chose NOT TO BELIEVE in any deity. Whereas this new movement of atheism is kind of a misnomer. I someone answers your question with "fuck if I know" they're Agnostic. If they answer "no" they're atheist. If they answer "[I believe] there is no God!! You're stupid for believing in it because science has proven you wrong and I won't shut up until you're an "Atheist" too!!! Let's fight about it forever!!!" Then they should be classified as an Anti-Theist. A real Atheist or Agnostic would see no point in arguing.
>>683935307 What I find funny is the idea that if a bunch of extremely intelligent people design a system and then create some molecular building block used in living things, that's somehow proof that it all happened by random chance when lightning hit a pond of mineral water, and not proof that it took intelligent design.
If I can go to a machine shop and use a lathe to make a bolt that fits in some component of a 747, that's proof that a tornado going through a scrapyard for billions of years can assemble a 747
>>683935195 The difference is is that MS word is thousands of lines of code. This is 200. If I gave a monkey a computer with 4 different keys, 1 in 4^200 chances (benefit of doubt, there are multiple variations that function) he would get it right. Put that in early earth conditions over a billion years with millions of parallel 'experiments' and it's very probable that the RNA could have spontaneously evolved (yes it's rather implausible, but scientists are working on similar RNA molecules which should be easier to evolve with day/night cycles)
It's proving that life came from an RNA precursor. We know that RNA can replicate itself under early earth conditions. We know that life came from a replicating RNA. We know there is a small chance that RNA could have evolved (also survivor bias). It seems to fall together quite well.
>>683936329 His calculation is based on cosmic probability. RNA world is only claiming to explain life on earth, no where else. Also survivorship bias, obviously the probability of life arising on earth is 1, because it's here right now (whether or not you believe in evolution or Adam and Eve)
>>683923384 I don't believe in god. I don't know what reason to give. I never believed in god even in my Christian upbringing. I don't know what god is and don't think anyone else really does either. All I can say is I knew the difference between a true story and a fairy tale even as a kid.
>>683936329 The universe is approx 14 billions years old, with approx 200 billion stars in an average galaxy and about the same amount of galaxies in the observable universe...the universe has had plenty of chances/time to life right at least once
I think people go into their religious experiences hoping to get something out of it. They want direction or friends or happiness or answers. If they don't find what they're looking for they abandon the faith. A lot of people in this thread had a misguided idea of what they could get out of religion.
God isn't going to snap his fingers and feed the but he is going to give us soil and plants and animals so we can work to feed them.
He isn't going to tell us how the universe was created, but he is going to give us brains and curiosity so we can explore that ourselves.
Every day I get what I want out of my religious journey. I find peace and motivation and love. It really is a wonderful experience for me. If you didn't get what you were hoping for then I'm sorry, but please don't become bitter. Maybe your time just hasn't come yet.
>>683938172 But your statistics are based on the size of the universe as an explanation to life. With logic like that, we could also say statistics make it seem probable that there is a god, since no one has a clue how such a plane of existance (the universe/spacetime) can exist, even if we ignore life itself.
>>683939046 It's not a lie though. Nor is there any reason to think that it is.
I believe that God is the embodiment of love. Love, despite being an abstract concept, is a real and quantifiable phenomenon. Essentially what I am believing in is love and goodwill.
Through church I can find other like-minded people and together we can discuss and work to help others. The act of helping others isn't a lie, it's an action. And once again it is quantifiable and brings me happiness.
When I pray, I try to be guided by God as I talk to myself. If God is love, then trying to reach a conclusion inspired by love can happen regardless of whether or not God is an actively influential entity. I normally feel better when I pray because I'm causing myself to think positively.
So it's not a lie at all. In fact, all of it is either physically or psychologically quantifiable and supported. Like I said, try not to be bitter. When you strawman all of religion as a lie you can miss the parts that might apply to you and make you happy.
>>683935602 I think it's more like "if there was a constant, tumultuous pattern that caused the entire scrapyard's pieces to move around constantly and bang into each other at incredible speeds without damaging any pieces for millenia, then maybe you might end up with a shitty vehicle, and if that vehicle is capable of producing more of itself, then you might eventually come up with something akin to a 747"
>>683939481 Maybe, maybe not. Still not a definite proof of a "higher-being" of some sort not existing. I'm not saying proof is required. Everyone can believe what they wish, but it's pretentious af to go around claiming to have all the knowledge to shut the possibility of a god out.
Whatever we can observe in this universe is secondary. When it comes to the bigger questions like the existance of any matter, laws of physics or a space that said matter/physics can "inhabit", no one has an explanation.
>>683939030 Only if you reject modern science you can draw those conclusions. Those statistics would be based on quantity of chances for places for life to exist and time to allow them to exist. Roll a 100 sided dice once for every observable star in the current universe, you will eventually role 3,4,5,6 in order. Now roll the dice for every star that has ever existed, the probability of rolling any specific combination of numbers will happen. Now imagine, those dice rolls were not numbers but elements. Eventually you will express every combination of elements possible, including those needed for life
No, I'm not convinced the abrahamic god or any other divine being exists. I don't really see how one can argue that god, allah, or yahweh exist but Zeus, Jupiter, or Odin don't. To me all of those religious belief system are equally valid. That is to say, they're all equally ridiculous.
I do however respect everyone's right to have their own beliefs, but I certainly don't have to respect those beliefs and they are generally not my business. However, when politicians use religion to promote and justify oppressing others then it becomes my business.
>>683939974 there's not really a connection to a higher being in that statement. I'm agnostic so I'm not looking to address the existence of a god here, just looking to identify the things that actually need to be evaluated and how they relate to what we do know.
>>683939676 To help others you need to believe in a god? Believing in a lie doesn't make it true, actually only makes it worse. Do even know what love is, how is this god giving you love? Stop fooling yourself.
>>683940681 that's the mechanism by which life both came about and evolved. You have to understand this. If you don't, okay, but you're not going to learn anything new unless you do understand this.
I don't give a fuck about religious whatever because that's not what this is about. This is about what we see, and we see a connection amongst all multicellular organisms that makes it pretty obvious that they descended from one thing.
We also see a steady change over time based on environment we sort of expect to see. In the time of the dinosaurs, there was theoretically a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is now. To back that up, there were ferns the size of trees in tropical environments. Now, things have changed. Plants and animals have adapted to colder environments, and changes have been made.
If you start there, you can see the trail backwards if you look at it enough. If you pretend you could never have an inkling, you will get nowhere.
>>683940406 That's not what I said at all. You can help others without believing in God.
You accelerate downwards without believing in gravity. You don't have to believe in gravity or even know gravity exists to fall. Similarly, you can reject the concept of God as an entity entirely but if you still do good things and help others then you're still showing an affinity for what God wants for us.
I don't believe God just gives love, I believe he IS love. In a sense at least I believe God is the embodiment of love in the universe. Every action or thought that you make benefitting another person is an expression of God's love for us. Every time you give to another person, God is loving that person through you as well.
And once again, this can happen whether or not you believe in God. As long as you try to be a good person God is still working his love through you. So there is no lie. Is love exists, which it does, then my idea of God exists.
>>683940063 Wasn't trying to prove you wrong or anything, since there's no way we can have the answer to these questions in our current state, but even rolling the dice and chemical reactions creating life doesn't explain the deeper questions, which this thread is about, since it's about the belief in god.
Simply put, any reaction, chemical or otherwise can be said to be a mystery. Why do they follow the laws that they do, and why? Where were those laws "programmed"?
>>683939518 Life is random chance See here >>683940063 , also jets do not come together by natural forces (i.e. Ionic interaction, hydrogen bonding, polar and non polar interaction, covalent bonding, etc) like molecules and macromolecules do.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.