Do you believe in GOD?

[sivispacem]

 

Well according to laws of logic, yes an ultimate cause is most logical.

Is it? If this is a logical statement, quantify it.

 

 

Of course you may have subjective views on logic

My subjective view of your use of logic is that it's fallacious. That view is being proven right by you making utterly unsupported statements about logic which aren't self-evident. Unless you care to quantify these, they are solely subjective.

 

 

An ultimate cause would fit into reality much better than an infinite amount of universes because it doesn't even begin to tackle origins.

Says who? You? Forgive my lack of trust in your analysis of probability, given that you're a conspiracy theorist with no demonstrable scientific grasp of the actual subject matter.

 

 

The evidence is already there.

Then why can't you actually produce it, no matter how many times I ask?

 

 

Did you pay any attention to the video I posted?

No, because YouTube videos are disproportionately unadulterated sh*t. I have no interest in you describing it to me either, as I don't trust your interpretation of anything. Find me an academic paper published in a journal making the same assertions or go away.

[Ferocious Banger]

I guess you can explore the side of the philosophy practised by Swami Vivekananda. That is significantly different from the God that the Bible depicts. I would like to see what your opinions after some thorough understanding of the Eastern philosophies.

 

@Carbonox

Edited July 6, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[Carbonox]

Let's put it this way: let's assume that the Abrahamic God shows himself to me directly and I'm somehow convinced that it isn't a prank by friends or a result of an LSD overdose. Even then, I'd be happy to turn my back to him, for there'd be nothing stopping him from murdering me in cold blood even if I turned into a believer.

 

As for the Asian stuff such as Buddhism or Hinduism (which I suppose you're referring to). Well I'm alright with the idea that their religions are promoting peace, unlike the miserable Abrahamic trio which I'm totally ashamed to co-exist with. But still, those creation myths and other religious stories already belong to the past, with science already answering most of humankind's questions. We no longer need (a) god(s) to understand what causes natural phenomena. We no longer need religion to be decent people. (Not that religion would even make anyone decent, considering all the moral double standards...)

[D- Ice]

 

I guess you can explore the side of the philosophy practised by Swami Vivekananda. That is significantly different from the God that the Bible depicts. I would like to see what your opinions after some thorough understanding of the Eastern philosophies.

 

@Carbonox

The God of the Bible, aka the Monotheistic God is actually not a Western concept.

The version according to religious tradition (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) states that it first in Southern Iraq (near today's Basra) when Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees (denoting Ur after the takeover by desert-dwelling Semetic Nomads from the Arabian Peninsula called the Akkadians, who later became the Chaldeans/Chaldees and Assyrians).

The version according to historical documentation has these concepts growing out of various Pagan Semetic gods - namely El, after invasion of desert-dwelling Semetic Nomads from the Arabian Peninsula called the Amorites, Cannanites - and most famously the Israelites.

 

That said, you make an excellent point in the discussion regarding the existance of God - most arguements seem to focus exclusively on the existance of the monotheistic deity of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I guess that is the title of the thread - specifically mentioning God. However, significant numbers of humanity believe in other supreme being(s) or forces. I will try to read up on Swami Vivekananda and Hinduism as a whole.

 

However, from what I know, the main reasons for my atheism remain the same - highly specific, intelligent deities and their significance, and the existance of a set standard of good and evil deeds, people and objects.

Edited July 6, 2013 by D- Ice

[Andreas]

 

The fact of the matter is that Gods are illogical, they make very little sense in the modern world, but that makes sense seeing as they were created by people who didn't understand anything about the Universe and used God as an excuse to fill those rather massive gaps in their knowledge.

I agree with your entire post, but especially with this sentence. The purpose of god is to explain the seemingly unexplainable, no matter if it's something that can be analyzed or if it's something that can not be analyzed since you don't have the methods for it, for instance. Obviously, I do not believe in god. I cannot believe in something that I have never seen before, and never will be able to see, because it can't be proven. That leads me to believe that something like a god doesn't exist. The word 'universum' describes the room where everything that exists is within it. Nothing can exist outside of it, and nothing could have existed before the universum started to exist. That's the theory, and that is if you take the word 'universum', which is latin for 'all of space', literally. That alone makes the probability that some sort of god created the universum zero.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[reform]

Of course I believe in myself!

[Narrow]

 

I am not going to share what even(s) converted to a believer. Please understand that.

Then you have literally nothing to stand on in this debate, provide a real reason for why you believe in God and we will continue this further, until then you've only served to make yourself look more moronic.

 

 

There are three kinds of people:

 

1) Those who believe in God.

2) Those who don't believe in God just to be cool.

3) Those who want an emprical evidence shown.

4) Those who wait for instances that shake their lives up forever.

 

That would be four.

 

Though to be fair, there are really only two types of people in this world, those who believe and those who do not. Even agnosticism is impossible, considering that you've already started to question your belief and belief in something like religion or God is meant to be unquestionable. Surely this omniscient being would know that you doubt his existence so believing out of fear won't do you any good either, and if you only act like you don't believe to seem "cool" (I know no-one who has done this since it is literally one of the stupidest things anyone could do) you still believe in God.

 

 

I belong to the fourth category. I have absolutely no disrespect to you; I don't blame you either, for I can see where you are coming from given the fact that I myself used to be like you.

 

So, for some inexplicable reason you've decided to forgo all logic and blindly believe in a being that has no factual, empirical basis. I'm sorry, but what you've done here is absolutely pathetic and moronic. Nothing, and I mean nothing should be able to turn you back to religion once you see the truth of it, it's the logical equivalent of still believing in Santa Clause when you're thirty and you've just come down stairs to nibble on the carrots and take a bite out of the cookies your kids left out for him.

 

In short, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and unless you provide proof the counteract this statement I'm afraid you're a bigger idiot than I thought possible. Regardless of whether one of your loved ones survived an almost impossible series of events it doesn't prove God's existence in the slightest, there is a factual and logical explanation for everything in this Universe and it's only a matter of figuring them out, not a matter of "they may or may not exist".

 

 

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

The evidence is already there.

Then why can't you actually produce it, no matter how many times I ask?

 

I am producing the evidence, you're just refusing to look at it..

 

 

 

Did you pay any attention to the video I posted?

No, because YouTube videos are disproportionately unadulterated sh*t. I have no interest in you describing it to me either, as I don't trust your interpretation of anything. Find me an academic paper published in a journal making the same assertions or go away.

 

Of course you would cut this- This man is a professor at a university on quantum mechanics with several published articles. He is much more qualified on the subject than you or I- out from what you quote me, the video is just as good as you sitting in a room with a qualified professor explaining it to you yet you still refuse it. It's well known throughout science that measuring the wave function causes it to collapse, it's even called the measurement problem in quantum mechanics because we can't measure it since everytime we try to observe the wave function it collapses into a definite state. We're only able to indirectly measure the wave function of probability.

 

Hell I'll show you a video of the experiment itself but I'm assuming you'll just disregard it as well because of the website the user decided to host it on doesn't meet up to your standards.. Go dig in papers published a century ago yourself.. Consciousness is the driving force of reality. Reality is extremely similar to modern computer simulations, not only are there individual 'pixels' at the plank length of reality, but they only exist in a definite state when you're looking at or measuring them.

[Mr. Sleepy]

So uh.. I'm not going to debate here whether "God" exists or not, but my question is, before the universe was in a "hot dense state", what was before the universe? What was behind the universe when the universe never existed? Nothing comes out of nothing. That's just how I see it.

 

If something never existed in the first place, then there must be something that triggered that thing to become real, in its material shape. (I don't imply that "God" did it or not).

 

It is a known fact that the universe is expanding up to this date, what is behind the universe? I'd love some answers to that. (And no, I am not being sarcastic).

[NCONiall]

 

Nothing comes out of nothing.

Nothing, does not exist. Where there's nothing, there is always something (at the quantum level). This might peak your interest.

[Mr. Sleepy]

Nothing comes out of nothing.

Nothing, does not exist. Where there's nothing, there is always something (at the quantum level). This might peak your interest.

Will check it out, cheers. Gotta' study for my last exam now and will read all the links that will be posted.

[sivispacem]

 

I am producing the evidence, you're just refusing to look at it..

No, you haven't. Nothing you have produced so far, YouTube video included, makes the claim that matter (note use of terminology) reacts differently when unobserved to when observed.

 

 

Of course you would cut this

Let me just interject there. This video says absolutely nothing about the nature of matter. He caveats everything he says by referring to "quantum things". We aren't talking the conventional matter, particles or waves here, and that you seem to repeatedly fail to understand. The video is in no way "as good as" a professor explaining your theory to me- which is what my dispute is with- because his statements say absolutely nothing about the claims you are making. All my dismissals in my initial post still stand.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with me being dismissive of technical authority. I will happily watch, listen or read to figures such as Professor Monroe discussing these issues. My objection is, and will always be, how you relate these views to your own. I'm in no way deriding the individual as sh*t- I'm dismissing YouTube videos, on the hole, as such, and am more than happy to extend this summary to your assertions if this is what you feel constitutes evidence of them. You've made numerous completely unsubstantiated and fallacious claims, and clearly have no understanding of a subject you are claiming supports your theory, and I'm asking you to quantify these things in relation to your arguments.

 

I don't need an idiot's guide to quantum mechanics from you; I'm quite capable of understanding the discipline myself. What you need to do is relate your claims about quantum mechanics to your argument, by providing evidence that ties QM to your thesis and to the claims you have made about the nature of the universe. I thought that was made abundantly clear some dozen or so pots ago, but apparently not.

 

If you're making an argument, you can't very well go tell people to go looking for a needle in a haystack that vindicates your theories. You need to provide the evidence there and then, so why do you seem so incapable of doing so?

 

Let me expand:

 

 

It's well known throughout science that measuring the wave function causes it to collapse, it's even called the measurement problem in quantum mechanics because we can't measure it since everytime we try to observe the wave function it collapses into a definite state. We're only able to indirectly measure the wave function of probability.

Here you are quite clearly referring to Wave function collapse. Notwithstanding the fact that there are as many legitimate interpretations of quantum mechanics that dismiss Wave function collapse as redundant, not only does it only apply in the field of quantum research (and therefore cannot be applied to classical particles or waves, as you do by stating "matter" without any caveats in your initial post), your summary of the process is highly flawed and scientifically inaccurate. Allow me to quote Thomas McFarlane of the Centre for Integral Science, who subscribes to quantum theory interpretations that dismiss wave function collapse:

 

 

The so-called “collapse” of the wave function in quantum theory is often illustrated by the wave/particle duality. When a photon propagates through a double-slit apparatus, it behaves like a wave. Yet, if it is observed, the non-local wave is collapsed into a single localized particle. However, both theory and experiment show that this is not a clear-cut either/or  distinction, as it is misleadingly presented in traditional discussions of the double slit experiment. The interference pattern is not simply there or not, but is gradually deteriorated as more information about which slit the particle went through can be extracted from the photon measurement. This suggests that, in general, there is never any discontinuous or sudden collapse of the wavefunction. All that is ever happening is that we’re pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way.

 

Not only is collapse of the wave function totally unverifiable and nonphysical, but another big problem with collapse is that it is in blatant violation of the Schrödinger equation! Any other scientific hypothesis that both violates known laws of physics and is not verifiable would normally be immediately rejected as pseudo-science. Why, then, has the notion of collapse stuck? Perhaps because one consequence of rejecting collapse would seem to be that it would lead us inevitably to the many worlds interpretation. Strange as the many worlds interpretation may be, however, it does have the virtue of being consistent with the laws of physics, at least as we know them so far.

 

Then there's the work of people like Wojciech H. Zurek, who contributed greatly to the theory of Quantum Decoherence, who address methods for the appearance of wave function collapse in relation to interpretation- that is, the wave front does not collapse but the quantum system leaks into the environment and therefore becomes immeasurable. Visceral, highly interesting stuff, that's brought about great advancements in theoretical quantum computing.

 

However, despite this being an interesting diversion, it's completely f*cking redundant unless you can relate these various theories to your thesis.

Edited July 6, 2013 by sivispacem

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Nothing comes out of nothing.

Nothing, does not exist. Where there's nothing, there is always something (at the quantum level). This might peak your interest.

I think that's the point he was making, as in the old saying "from nothing, nothing comes."

 

So since there is something (the universe) there couldn't have ever been absolute nothingness because nothing doesn't actually even exist and obviously couldn't have created everything.

 

There is a requirement for something to have always existed- an ultimate cause, and the universe can't cause itself to begin existing, the cause would logically be external.

 

 

 

 

 

@Sivispacem Look up Wave Function Collapse. Electrons, photons.. many quantum particles behave in this way.

 

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate after interaction with an observer."

-Griffiths, David J. (2005). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 106–109

Edited July 6, 2013 by GrandMaster Smith

[lloydo]

So uh.. I'm not going to debate here whether "God" exists or not, but my question is, before the universe was in a "hot dense state", what was before the universe? What was behind the universe when the universe never existed? Nothing comes out of nothing. That's just how I see it.

 

If something never existed in the first place, then there must be something that triggered that thing to become real, in its material shape. (I don't imply that "God" did it or not).

 

It is a known fact that the universe is expanding up to this date, what is behind the universe? I'd love some answers to that. (And no, I am not being sarcastic).

You've about reached the limits of human thought, any further deep thoughts and you'll go insane.

 

I was thinking about this the other day, Creator or not. Space is very little understood. What did the universe start from? If it was always there, or if it wasn't there (i.e empty), but something was created eventually, doesn't that mean the universe (or original space) is infinite in measurement of time.

[sivispacem]

 

@Sivispacem Look up Wave Function Collapse.

Explain to me which part of wave function collapse relates to conventional matter then? Or for that matter to your whole damn argument? Given that:

 

 

In quantum mechanics...

Basically precludes the theories being applicable to classical wave and particle systems. Also note the following (emphasis mine)

 

 

appears to reduce to a single eigenstate after interaction with an observer.

 

appears

So we aren't claiming here that quantum particles do in fact behave in this way, but that they appear to.

 

As I discussed in great depth above.

 

 

 

 

I don't even begin to properly understand quantum mechanics and I can still see your argument is sh*t.

Edited July 6, 2013 by sivispacem

[Ferocious Banger]

 

So, for some inexplicable reason you've decided to forgo all logic and blindly believe in a being that has no factual, empirical basis.

 

What happened with me is as personal as can be. I do not wish to expand this more. Do you expect me to have a video footage of what transpired in my life over a period of time just so that I could prove someone wrong about the existence of God in the future?

 

Even if I did say what happened, chances are that you'll be calling bullsh*t on it. Coming to think about it, there isn't really a need for you to believe the "miracles" that happened in Ferocious Banger's life. So, sorry. There is absolutely no evidence of what happened to me.

 

Please, believe me if you wish. Otherwise, we'll agree to disagree and move on.

 

I'd suggest you forget the one definition of God and look more into Ramana Maharishi's and Vivekanandha's philosophies. Of course, you aren't forced to do so, but do consider them in future for a more all round knowledge.

[D- Ice]

 

Nothing comes out of nothing.

Nothing, does not exist. Where there's nothing, there is always something (at the quantum level). This might peak your interest.

I think that's the point he was making, as in the old saying "from nothing, nothing comes."

 

So since there is something (the universe) there couldn't have ever been absolute nothingness because nothing doesn't actually even exist and obviously couldn't have created everything.

 

There is a requirement for something to have always existed- an ultimate cause, and the universe can't cause itself to begin existing, the cause would logically be external.

 

 

 

 

 

@Sivispacem Look up Wave Function Collapse. Electrons, photons.. many quantum particles behave in this way.

 

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate after interaction with an observer."

-Griffiths, David J. (2005). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 106–109

I know very little about Quantum Physics, so sadly I wont be able to indugle you with a deep and well-informed discussion about the existance of an Ultimate Cause as the others.

 

I will assume that what you say is correct - nothing could not have created everything, therefore something must have always existed. I will also take a leap of faith and accept it to be external, as you said. Furthermore, I will take another massive leap of faith, and accept your claim that this eternal, external 'something' is a persistent, consistent, monolithic, singular entity - the Ultimate Cause.

 

However, I still find it too big a leap of faith - after all your claims which I blindly taken up as true - to equate this Ultimate Cause to a sentient, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God, or any other deities worshipped by manking throughout our existance. All these attributes are far too specific, varied across cultures and time periods, and unproven to be taken with any seriousness.

The existance of a universal, devinely approved set of standards to which humanity is to live by suffers the exact same issues of specificity and variability. And finally the exact same goes for every other bit of religious teaching. I see us all as lucky to be living in a time period where there is a significant and growing schism between religious-inspired moral standards, and accepted ethics of modern societies.

 

Regarding what you say about the Ultimate Cause, I would happily be an Agnostic as opposed to an Atheist,as the existance of which I am unsure about with my limited knowledge of Physics. However, the leap of faith that the aforementioned is God is too big for me to take, so I remain an Atheist.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2013 by D- Ice

[GrandMaster Smith]

@Sivis....it 'appears' to collapse because when we LOOK at it, it collapses into a single particle, as opposed to it being in a state of quantum superposition when unobserved.

 

As shown in the double slit experiment that both energy and matter can display characteristics of both waves and particles, depending on whether they're being unobserved or observed.

 

 

 

@D- Ice - I'm claiming it is conscious.. not that it's a material conscious being but consciousness itself.. awareness at it's core. I'm not really sure how else to put it other than it simply is rather than is not. Something much grander than you or I, I believe we as individuals are a snippet of this whole consciousness experiencing life subjectively through an independent body. I'm personally not a Christian but I do believe that nearly every religion has found that connection to this source, just each religion has it's own subjective view on what this source is and puts many names on it and whatnot.

Edited July 6, 2013 by GrandMaster Smith

[Mr. Sleepy]

So uh.. I'm not going to debate here whether "God" exists or not, but my question is, before the universe was in a "hot dense state", what was before the universe? What was behind the universe when the universe never existed? Nothing comes out of nothing. That's just how I see it.

 

If something never existed in the first place, then there must be something that triggered that thing to become real, in its material shape. (I don't imply that "God" did it or not).

 

It is a known fact that the universe is expanding up to this date, what is behind the universe? I'd love some answers to that. (And no, I am not being sarcastic).

You've about reached the limits of human thought, any further deep thoughts and you'll go insane.

 

I was thinking about this the other day, Creator or not. Space is very little understood. What did the universe start from? If it was always there, or if it wasn't there (i.e empty), but something was created eventually, doesn't that mean the universe (or original space) is infinite in measurement of time.

Exactly, the limits of our thoughts, yet what bothers me about atheists is how they go on and explain how science can answer all questions and whatnot, yet one question remains unanswered. "What IS beyond the universe?" "What was before the universe started?"

 

And all those religious nutjobs piss me off with their thoughts and whatnot, God damn it pisses me off every time I talk to one, can't think up of an argument and he just goes on to blabber.

 

And I always end up shouting at them to tell them that I don't give a f*ck about his thoughts.

 

All in all, everyone should just stick to whatever they want to believe in and leave the others alone.

 

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will know peace."

- Jimi Hendrix.

 

Let's just all live in one peaceful world.

 

[sivispacem]

....it 'appears' to collapse because when we LOOK at it, it collapses into a single particle, as opposed to it being in a state of quantum superposition when unobserved.

 

As shown in the double slit experiment that both energy and matter can display characteristics of both waves and particles, depending on whether they're being unobserved or observed.

I addressed that two posts ago, try and keep up.

 

Still waiting for you to relate it to your argument.

[Danz.]

I think it has made me an overall better person. Since I got involved I've stopped being judgemental, arrogant, and selfish.

anyone who needs religion in order to be a nice person is a sad human being.

if you need to believe in god in order to stop being a judgmental arrogant prick, then you're kind of a sh*tty person to begin with.

 

you should be able to figure those things out on your own.

1. I don't need religion to be a nice person.

2. Believing in God and following and understanding the points of christianity has made me an overall better person, but that doesn't mean I was a bad person when I wasn't committed to God.

 

Why do you seem to dislike catholicism so much? I've found something that genuinely makes me happy and I'm comfortable with. I engage in meditation and have found myself more relaxed and mellow since I started learning about Him. That's all.

What else would expect talking to someone called "El Diablo"?

 

Honestly, it's not that I don't believe in God or in another supreme being, it's just the fact that I don't give a crap about religion and I can live well without following any kind of dogma. Still, I respect others's beliefs.

 

Be happy.

[d0mm2k8]

Still, I respect others's beliefs.

I don't respect people's beliefs. When they focus their entire life and understanding of the world around completely ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality, I can't respect that.

 

I do however respect their rights to hold they insane beliefs.

[Mr. Sleepy]

That's really awesome. You should watch his videos.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Vujicic

[E.A.B.]

Don't mind me, just posting some relevant atheist garble:

 

 

 

 

Saw the title and wanted to dump some images. Anyway, my only input is that if you get a sense of intellectual superiority over something as simple as the debate dealing with the existence of God then you must be really low on the intellectual pole. Talk about getting a sense of superiority over something so obvious and simple.

 

I get a sense of superiority over being able to tie my shoes. Hurr. If you're gonna be pretentious, be so over something that's harder to figure out.

[d0mm2k8]

Don't mind me, just posting some relevant atheist garble:

These are images that are just some random quotes on top of unrelated pictures of autists wearing fedoras or weird looking people in an attempt to make people naturally disagree with what it's saying. Still, at face value they're cringey as f*ck.

 

 

That's really awesome. You should watch his videos.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

[Target13]

Yes i do. Not sure which one but i believe in all the Sky Religion gods (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) I Was thought to believe in Islam....I Still do...but ya know.......Never Mind

[GTA 360]

The idea of a God's irrational and pathetic, invented by humanity to protect their fragile little minds from the dark abyss that is death.

This guy speaks the truth!

100% agree with this comment.

[NikoGTA4]

It's unbelievable that we are in 2013 and people in America still believe that god or some kind of god exist.

 

The Bible is the most changed/censored/altered pile of bullsh*t ever, the Jesus story is a fairy tale itself.

 

Put Jesus in today's situation, he would be diagnosed as a schizophrenic. He would be made fun of.

But back in the time, everybody who was hearing voices had a contact with paradise and god. Look at how many sects leaders there are today. Most Christians will say that they are completely ridiculous and that they don't make sense, because you know, "Jesus can't hide behind the Hale Bop Comet, it's completely stupid! (Heaven's Gate 1997)" but they seem to forget that Jesus did the exact same thing, by preaching bullcrap. It's only that we didn't have enough proofs our technology to prove the opposite.

 

After all these years, maybe all we did was preaching a poor hobo and mentally hill person.

 

This is exactly why I think that the Christian god doesn't exist, nor any other god does. It's true, we don't know what's beyond universe, why it is there. And we will never know. You have the full right to use your imagination, but simply think that we are probably part of something bigger, and it goes on and on. To what? We'll never know.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot

[El Dildo]

 

1. I don't need religion to be a nice person.

yes. I know.

 

that's my point.

thanks for agreeing with me

 

 

2. Believing in God and following and understanding the points of christianity has made me an overall better person

 

if believing in an imaginary teapot orbiting Jupiter makes you a better person, then I guess I can't argue with the results.

but it still doesn't change the fact that you're praying to an imaginary teapot orbiting Jupiter.

 

or as you Catholics call it; Jesus.

the 3,000 year old dead Jewish zombie.

 

 

Why do you seem to dislike catholicism so much?

where should I begin?

your stupid church preaches that condoms are bad, homosexuals are evil, and that women are significantly less important than men.

 

not only that, they preach that condoms are bad while setting up churches all across Africa.

Africa! the one place on Earth that needs more condoms than anywhere else.

 

the Catholic church is directly responsible for countless deaths caused by AIDS... among other things.

they also need to stop raping (and covering up the raping) of little boys.

 

so yeah...

 

 

I've found something that genuinely makes me happy and I'm comfortable with.

yeah my teddy bear made me happy and comfortable too... when I was 6 years old.

 

then I grew up.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Still, I respect others's beliefs.

I don't respect people's beliefs. When they focus their entire life and understanding of the world around completely ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality, I can't respect that.

 

I do however respect their rights to hold they insane beliefs.

I don't get what's so ridiculous about claiming that something can exist outside our reality. It's quite almost a necessity to make sense of our existence..

 

 

Can you or anyone else in here for that matter, show and articulate a better logically sound theory for our existence than an ultimate cause? Something that isn't an infinite loop?