Do you believe in GOD?

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Why does our existence have to make sense?

[GrandMaster Smith]

Because we live in a logical world where things are quantifiable.

 

It would only make sense to first pursue the logical explanations to our existence rather than the illogical..

[I cucked Alex Jones]

You said something HAS to exist outside of our reality to make sense. Given the fact that there is no proof for this, I think we can eliminate this theory for now.

[GrandMaster Smith]

You said something HAS to exist outside of our reality to make sense. Given the fact that there is no proof for this, I think we can eliminate this theory for now.

There's also no proof for the planck length, you think scientists are just going to eliminate that theory as well? Lol...

 

 

Please explain how a singularity that is beyond time itself could have caused itself without cause and effect in place? It would be impossible for the singularity to cause itself outside of time, therefore requiring an outside external source to have initiated it.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

You said something HAS to exist outside of our reality to make sense. Given the fact that there is no proof for this, I think we can eliminate this theory for now.

There's also no proof for the planck length, you think scientists are just going to eliminate that theory as well? Lol...

 

 

Please explain how a singularity that is beyond time itself could have caused itself without cause and effect in place? It would be impossible for the singularity to cause itself outside of time, therefore requiring an outside external source to have initiated it.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I dismiss the consensus of the scientific community and instead accept an alternative that requires no proof?

[GrandMaster Smith]

You said something HAS to exist outside of our reality to make sense. Given the fact that there is no proof for this, I think we can eliminate this theory for now.

There's also no proof for the planck length, you think scientists are just going to eliminate that theory as well? Lol...

 

 

Please explain how a singularity that is beyond time itself could have caused itself without cause and effect in place? It would be impossible for the singularity to cause itself outside of time, therefore requiring an outside external source to have initiated it.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I dismiss the consensus of the scientific community and instead accept an alternative that requires no proof?

Who said it doesn't require proof?

 

And what's this consensus that I'm asking you to dismiss? We have nothing but theories at this moment, we have no way of proving or disproving theories on origins of the universe at this point in time.

 

We must simply exercise our reasoning when trying to pinpoint the most likely theory to our origins, and an eternal ultimate uncaused-cause is the longest standing theory that has yet to be shown wrong.. it's stood the test of time so far because it's the most logically sound explanation to our existence even till today.

 

Even materialism is starting to fall apart in light of quantum mechanics.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

 

And what's this consensus that I'm asking you to dismiss? We have nothing but theories at this moment, we have no way of proving or disproving theories on origins of the universe at this point in time.

 

 

 

 

Which iis...

 

 

We must simply exercise our reasoning when trying to pinpoint the most likely theory to our origins, and an eternal ultimate uncaused-cause is the longest standing theory that has yet to be shown wrong.. it's stood the test of time so far because it's the most logically sound explanation to our existence even till today.

These theories also demand that we believe Muhammad rode to heaven on a horse or that a virgin gave birth. Their age does not make them any more of a viable explanation. Why should I believe bronze age scribbles over the modern day scientific community?

Edited July 7, 2013 by Nipperkins

[Chukkles]

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..

 

 

That's it though, a reason to make you feel mor e important than you actually are. That's religion.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

These theories also demand that we believe Muhammad rode to heaven on a horse or that a virgin gave birth. Their age does not make them any more of a viable explanation. Why should I believe bronze age scribbles over the modern day scientific community?

Where have I provided Muhammad or Jesus as evidence of there being an ultimate cause being the source of our existence?

 

Saying this theory has stood the test of time does not equate to it relying on ancient text. This conclusion is reached by modern scientific findings and by using reasoning and abiding by laws of logic.

 

 

 

 

 

That's it though, a reason to make you feel mor e important than you actually are. That's religion.

 

If you read what I've written you'd know that I've stated several times I'm not a Christian, nor even religious. This isn't about making me feel better about myself, it's about pursuing knowledge and understanding of our existence. Reality being intentionally created would have innumerable implications, one being that we should be able to make logical sense out of ALL of reality (in due time) being that it would've been created by an intelligence itself- which is what science has been showing us for quite some time now.

[Chukkles]

These theories also demand that we believe Muhammad rode to heaven on a horse or that a virgin gave birth. Their age does not make them any more of a viable explanation. Why should I believe bronze age scribbles over the modern day scientific community?

Where have I provided Muhammad or Jesus as evidence of there being an ultimate cause being the source of our existence?

 

Saying this theory has stood the test of time does not equate to it relying on ancient text. This conclusion is reached by modern scientific findings and by using reasoning and abiding by laws of logic.

 

 

 

 

 

That's it though, a reason to make you feel mor e important than you actually are. That's religion.

 

If you read what I've written you'd know that I've stated several times I'm not a Christian, nor even religious. This isn't about making me feel better about myself, it's about pursuing knowledge and understanding of our existence. Reality being intentionally created would have innumerable implications, one being that we should be able to make logical sense out of ALL of reality (in due time) being that it would've been created by an intelligence itself- which is what science has been showing us for quite some time now.

Just religion as a whole, not pointing fingers at you, it's just you made the point that I commented on.

We need religion to make sense of it all.

 

Clearly not true. But how most people see it, if there's a god there's an afterlife, if there's an after life I can be happy when I die.

 

Death scares people into religion. Is it really a good thing???

[GrandMaster Smith]

...But we aren't discussing religion right now.. That'd be like me saying all government is bad because some people abuse it's power which is obviously not true, at least entirely.

 

 

 

We're discussing the existence of an ultimate cause which is eternal, meaning having no beginning nor end being linked to the existence of reality and life. You and others are saying it cannot exist therefore is pointless to pursue the theory. I'm simply asking why it is not possible nor logically sound and why so many are dismissing it. The only arguments I've seen made so far are arguments based on emotion where people simply don't like the idea of a god therefore choose to not believe in one.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

These theories also demand that we believe Muhammad rode to heaven on a horse or that a virgin gave birth. Their age does not make them any more of a viable explanation. Why should I believe bronze age scribbles over the modern day scientific community?

Where have I provided Muhammad or Jesus as evidence of there being an ultimate cause being the source of our existence?

 

Saying this theory has stood the test of time does not equate to it relying on ancient text. This conclusion is reached by modern scientific findings and by using reasoning and abiding by laws of logic.

 

 

 

 

 

I was wrong then.

 

Still, we can't prove that the Big Bang happened for 100 percent. Yet. We can't demonstratively prove that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. Does this mean that evolution is wrong?

[Chukkles]

. The only arguments I've seen made so far are arguments based on emotion where people simply (don't) like the idea of a god therefore choose to (not) believe in one.

Remove the bracketed words and there is most people's argument for having a god.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Of course it doesn't mean evolution's wrong. If there are reasons to believe it's true then it's smartest to continue pursuing these theories until they are shown to be wrong.

 

Same with everything else, we should be very open to the possibilities of reality. You'd be laughed at if you told mankind 1,000 years ago that physical matter isn't solid at all, that it's all illusory (except maybe by the Hindu's/buddhist) but look at what we've discovered today..

 

 

I'm not sure why so many naturalists and materialists can say inanimate bunches of energy can condense itself and somehow create consciousness within our reality, but energy cannot create consciousness beyond our reality.. but they then go off saying that infinite universes can exist outside our reality.. It's like a mental block has been subliminally placed into their thinking process.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Don't get me wrong. I think it's very possible for a god to exist. The idea that he is responsible for the creation of the universe however, seems a little far fetched.

[blitz]

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.

That's it though, of course if you're talking about an imaginary teapot you can use a telescope or whatever device to prove that it's not there, but when it comes to God there is no way of proving he isn't real. He may or may not be, and I think he's real. What's the big deal.

 

By being a catholic it doesn't mean I agree with 100% of what the church proposes. Heck, I agree with you on those three points. But the catholic church does not define God. God is a presence which you have a personal relationship with. Condoms, AIDS, and gay people aside.

 

Great, your teddy bear made you happy. That's wonderful. That doesn't mean anything because comparing a teddy bear and God are two different things. A teddy bear is a material object which is commonly used as a toy by infants and toddlers, while God is a personal relationship we develop throughout our lifetime.

 

Also, just to clarify I'm not a religious nut or anything, I just have a certain respect towards God and believe in his existance. And I love debating in these kinds of things.

[Bartleby]

I'm not sure why so many naturalists and materialists can say inanimate bunches of energy can condense itself and somehow create consciousness within our reality, but energy cannot create consciousness beyond our reality.. but they then go off saying that infinite universes can exist outside our reality.. It's like a mental block has been subliminally placed into their thinking process.

No one is disputing possibilities here except you. I think you will find that no one is saying you are definitely wrong, only that your arguments hinge on your own subjectivity and that you've danced around any requests for you to provide academic sources for what you say is true. Your theory means nothing without proof (and note that proof is not just saying it is the most/only logical case and selectively choosing sources while subtly misrepresenting what they say).

 

At the end of the day if you're unable to do this, you leave us with no compelling reason to take what you say seriously. But then again i'm sure you wil most probably claim you provided proof that I'm too narrow-minded to see and then go off on another inane tangent. It's cool, dude.

[sivispacem]

 

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?

Better? That's subjective. But what you seem to be struggling with is the fact that people aren't hesitant about the conceptfof an external cause, but question the other attributes that you provide to it. There's no discernable logical argument for that cause to be sentient, unitary, ultimate and capable of cognition and reasoning; infinite, moral and omniscient.

 

Also, given that it is impossible to experience things out of conventional four dimensional space/time, we may never know. Given that we cannot experience this currently, all assessments of root cause are purely hypothetical and based on experiences outside of the root cause. That means issues of probability are unquantifiable. No matter how ridiculous a root cause theory may be, it is impossible to judge its empirical merit because the statistics required to do so are currently unfathomable.

 

I also note you've changed your tune on evolution. Who'd have thunk it...

Edited July 7, 2013 by sivispacem

[Creed Bratton]

 

I don't get what's so ridiculous about claiming that something can exist outside our reality.

Claiming that something can exist isn't very ridiculous. Although, you still lack evidence. When someone says that it does exist and that they know exactly what it is and how it works because they've read it in an ancient book is the ridiculous part.

Edited July 7, 2013 by GTAvanja

[E.A.B.]

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.

it still speaks to a bigger point: some atheists can be obnoxious and pretentious. You know the type

 

''f*ck religion its responsible for every war ever!''

 

I used to be one of those ''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.'' atheists. Then I quit being so edgy and non-conformist and settled on ''yeah, God most likely isn't real, but I'm not gonna sh*t on people for being religious as I believe it can provide a sense of strength and stability in turbulent times''

 

I don't even like calling myself an atheist because it lumps me with people like 'The Amazing Atheist' and his banana tricks.

[DEALUX]

 

Something that isn't an infinite loop?

Why isn't that plausible for you? What if our expectation for there to be a first cause, a beginning, is wrong? Maybe it's some sort of bias our minds have.

 

 

By being a catholic it doesn't mean I agree with 100% of what the church proposes. Heck, I agree with you on those three points. But the catholic church does not define God. God is a presence which you have a personal relationship with. Condoms, AIDS, and gay people aside.

I see two signs of bias in this paragraph. First, you admit that you cherry pick your religion which kind of defeats the whole purpose of adhering to a religion. Secondly, they do define god in the bible, but you are willing to ignore the bad parts because it makes you feel good. You don't really want to believe in the god of Christianity, you just want to believe in something because there's a need there. Maybe a problem.

[E.A.B.]

 

I see two signs of bias in this paragraph. First, you admit that you cherry pick your religion which kind of defeats the whole purpose of adhering to a religion. Secondly, they do define god in the bible, but you are willing to ignore the bad parts because it makes you feel good. You don't really want to believe in the god of Christianity, you just want to believe in something because there's a need there. Maybe a problem.

I'd just like to point out that one can be religious but not adhere to religious institutions and their conventions.

 

and that separating from organized religions on certain aspects leads to new religions being formed that believe they are honoring God's will in the RIGHT way. Same God, different interpretation. The difference between Protestants and Catholics.

 

And the idea that there is an issue with him because he wishes to believe in a higher power is insulting.

[AnDReJ98]

How stipid thread. Of course, i do.

[Killerdude]

No, if it can't be proven with scientific facts and methods, it can't exist.

 

If you believe in some divine entity, cool, I disagree but respect it.

[Ferocious Banger]

Unless you have seen/felt God; you can't be convinced. I wasn't convinced like a lot of my fellow forumers. But I was, after something spectacularly miraculous happened to me. Your spiritual knowledge is very very finite. Please put your time, and learn about Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc, etc. Too many people think about Christianity alone when they think of God. Make sure you are unbiased when you learn them and their philosophies.

[Raavi]

 

No, if it can't be proven with scientific facts and methods, it can't exist.

 

If you believe in some divine entity, cool, I disagree but respect it.

Everything evolves over time, so why wouldn't 'god'? When placing the notion of 'god' something that is worshiped, idealized, and/or followed in modern times, it wouldn't be a omnipotent man, it would be something we all crave and need to survive, something that heals the wounded, cures the sick, gives us a roof above our heads, gives us means of transportation.. God in modern times would be money.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Raavi

[Killerdude]

No, if it can't be proven with scientific facts and methods, it can't exist.

 

If you believe in some divine entity, cool, I disagree but respect it.

Everything evolves over time, so why wouldn't 'god'? When placing the notion of 'god' something that is worshiped, idealized, and/or followed in modern times, it wouldn't be a omnipotent man, it would be something we all crave and need to survive, something that heals the wounded, cures the sick, gives us a roof above our heads, gives us means of transportation.. God in modern times would be money.

Damn dude, that is incredibly deep..

[Secura]

How stipid thread. Of course, i do.

I'd like ask why exactly you believe that this thread is "stupid" as you so eloquently put it.

[Ferocious Banger]

How stipid thread. Of course, i do.

I'd like ask why exactly you believe that this thread is "stupid" as you so eloquently put it.

Do you believe in electricity?

[Zizo008]

That's not a fair comparison. There's a great amount of evidence for electricity. However, the only proof for the existence of a god is some ancient scripture as far as i know, which clearly isn't enough.

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan