God and Science.

j.GrEeN.<,{'^'},>

Active Member
Does Science Answer "Is There a God?"

The reality of God's existence is the most important question, since it has eternal consequences. The evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe. It is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained by chance in order for stars and galaxies to exist.

by Rich Deem


Part 1 of the introduction for non-believers showed that strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe. In order to keep this essay brief, much of the supporting information will not be included. However, you can click the links to the full-length articles for the details.

Detecting the non-physical
Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the atheists who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of God. However, recently, the "new atheists" think that they can prove the non-existence of God through science. Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation. Consider the non-physical concept of love. We all accept that love exists, although it cannot be directly measured by science. However, if we observe those who love each other, we can indirectly measure the affect of love on these individuals' actions. For example, we might notice that they spend a lot of time together, they are constantly helping each other in various ways, and they come to each other's defense when the other is threatened in some way. Although we cannot measure love directly, we can measure the indirect effects of love. Likewise, although we cannot measure God directly, we can examine the universe to detect God's imprint on the physical world.

Evidence for design?
The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10[SUP]-36[/SUP] to 10[SUP]-32[/SUP] seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge�parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.[SUP]1[/SUP] However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe
View attachment 2143559Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.[SUP]2[/SUP] Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10[SUP]59[/SUP] larger,[SUP]3[/SUP] the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10[SUP]80[/SUP] baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10[SUP]21[/SUP] baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.[SUP]4[/SUP]

Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10[SUP]37[/SUP] or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10[SUP]40[/SUP], then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10[SUP]55[/SUP] less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10[SUP]120[/SUP] would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 10[SUP]80[/SUP] baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (10[SUP]18[/SUP] sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10[SUP]-45[/SUP] sec),[SUP]5[/SUP] the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:
1/10[SUP]80[/SUP] x 1/10[SUP]18[/SUP] x 1/10[SUP]45[/SUP] =1/10[SUP]143[/SUP]
So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

  • "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."[SUP]6[/SUP]
  • "Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."[SUP]7[/SUP]
  • "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."[SUP]8[/SUP]

Speculative "solutions" to the design "problem"

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:
"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."[SUP]9[/SUP]
What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:
"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."[SUP]10[/SUP]
According to Paul Davies:
"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not�.If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

Theistic solution
- measurable design
View attachment 2143560On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.[SUP]11[/SUP]

Who created God?

A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.[SUP]12[/SUP] A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed[SUP]13[/SUP] and that God created time,[SUP]14[/SUP] along with the entire universe,[SUP]15[/SUP] being described as an expanding universe.[SUP]16[/SUP] Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

Conclusion

View attachment 2143561No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes. Continue to part 3: Is Christianity True?...
General Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview? | Part 3: Is Christianity True?
The Evidence:
Design


Supernatural
Evidence



Evolution/
Design



[HR][/HR]Related Pages


Book Review: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross

[HR][/HR]References


  1. Gibbons, G. W., Gielen, S., Pope, C. N. & Turok, N. 2009. Naturalness of CP Violation in the Standard Model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102: 121802.
  2. Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Wikipedia.
  3. Cosmology Tutorial, Part 3: Spatial Curvature; Flatness-Oldness; Horizon, Edward L. (Ned) Wright, UCLA.
  4. "The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically "dead de Sitter;" that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure). Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, "mixing" into it in a "porous," phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region. Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will occasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the "miraculous" states discussed above." from Dyson, L., M. Kleban, and L. Susskind. 2002. Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Reprint from arXiv.
  5. Halliday, D. and R. Resnick. 1988. Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed. extended, New York: Wiley, p. 544. Note that universal time bounds for electronic computers have clock speeds between ten and twenty magnitudes slower than the Planck time- see Ingo Wegener, The Complexity of Boolean Functions (Stuttgart: Wiley-Teubner, 1987), 2.
  6. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254401: 252-254.
  7. Discovery Supports Astronomers' Paradoxical Views of the Universe from Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum
  8. Dyson, L., M. Kleban, and L. Susskind. 2002. Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Reprint from arXiv.
  9. Glanz, J. 1999. AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY MEETING: Hawking Blesses the Accelerating Universe. Science 284: 34-35.
  10. The Origin-of-Life Prize� from the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.�.
  11. "My approach to reality is different. I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well, then God exists." Tipler, F. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity.
  12. "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time.
    Penrose, R. 1966. An analysis of the structure of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
    Hawking, S.W. 1966. Singularities and the Geometry of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
    Hawking, S.W. and G.F.R. Ellis. 1968. The cosmic black-body radiation and the existence of singularities in our universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25-36.
    Hawking, S.W. and R. Penrose. 1970. The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: 529-548.
  13. "Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?" (Isaiah 43:13)
    Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:2)
    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
    but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; (Romans 16:26)
    Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)
    To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
  14. God created and was acting before time began:
    • In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
    • No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
    • This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
    • The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
    • To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
  15. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
    For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)
    The universe was formed at God's command, so that what was seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)
    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:11)
  16. The following verses suggest that God created the universe through an expanding universe - what science has called the Big Bang. In many cases the Hebrew text indicates present tense - a process still continuing.
    • Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)
    • Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalm 104:2)
    • It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)
    • Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)
    • Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone" (Isaiah 44:24)
    • "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)
    • "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together." (Isaiah 48:13)
    • That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)
    • It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)
    • It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)
    • The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:17)

http://www.godandscience.org/


Alot more information here, if interested!!^^^

All, rational/reasonable comments welcome.


:peace::leaf:
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination or education in the audience.


The general form of the argument is as follows.


Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.

In this case

Major premise: One can't imagine a complicated universe without assuming fine tuning.
Minor premise (unstated): If randomness was responsible, one could imagine it.
Conclusion: Not randomness

Major premise: If the universe was fine tuned it must have had a designer
Minor premise (unstated): One can not imagine such detail without a designer
Conclusion: Designer
 

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
^ who the fuck talks like that? lol anyways, you can indeed measure love, thanks to recent studies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp-r_f8-qz8&feature=related

And I'd have to say that this was a waste of time if you wanted to change the minds of atheists. They expect God to do a tap dance in front of them to prove he exists, why should God feel like he has something to prove? Its not like anything bad happens to the non believers (because there is no hell) they'll just get sent through another life for more learning and discovering till they're ready to escape reincarnation, or they'll just tap into their past life memories when they die and get rid of their ignorance (oh how the atheists are laughing at me now lol). You have to have an interest in spirituality if you want to find God, but sceptical thinking and spirituality dont mix at all so atheists wont put any effort into understanding spirituality (religion is not spirituality, but there is slivers of truth in almost all of them)... Evidence of God is everywhere but its not the fairy dust the atheists look for. The astounding, beautiful complexities of this amazing universe that my words give no justice to should be enough evidence of God, but atheists will find a way to put that into numbers and formulas and discredit it of any spiritual significance, because that is what they seek to do. That or they just dont have an eye for all the beautiful things in the world.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Proof of God #162

ARGUMENT FROM EVIDENTIAL ASSERTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore all physical evidence must show this.
(3) Therefore it does.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Proof of God #215

ARGUMENT FROM COUNTERFACTUAL EVIDENCE
(1) You claim the evidence for God is non-existent.
(2) But if there were lots of evidence, you would still not be convinced.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Proof of God #565

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (III) (INVERSE BABELFISH ARGUMENT)
(1) Any evidence would be against faith.
(2) Without faith, God is nothing.
(3) Faith exists.
(4) Therefore, God is not nothing and evidence for God's nonexistence cannot exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Proof of God #461

ARGUMENT FROM SECRET KNOWLEDGE
(1) There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
(2) No, I'm not going to tell you what it is.
(3) The only possible explanation for your lack of knowledge is that you haven't studied enough.
(4) Or maybe your atheistic presupposition is blinding you to the truth.
(5) But trust me &#8212; it's overwhelming.
(6) It's so overwhelming that no reasonable person can honestly reach the conclusion that God does not exist.
(7) Therefore, God exists.
 

ThE sAtIvA hIgH

Well-Known Member
^ who the fuck talks like that? lol anyways, you can indeed measure love, thanks to recent studies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp-r_f8-qz8&feature=related

And I'd have to say that this was a waste of time if you wanted to change the minds of atheists. They expect God to do a tap dance in front of them to prove he exists, why should God feel like he has something to prove? Its not like anything bad happens to the non believers (because there is no hell) they'll just get sent through another life for more learning and discovering till they're ready to escape reincarnation, or they'll just tap into their past life memories when they die and get rid of their ignorance (oh how the atheists are laughing at me now lol). You have to have an interest in spirituality if you want to find God, but sceptical thinking and spirituality dont mix at all so atheists wont put any effort into understanding spirituality (religion is not spirituality, but there is slivers of truth in almost all of them)... Evidence of God is everywhere but its not the fairy dust the atheists look for. The astounding, beautiful complexities of this amazing universe that my words give no justice to should be enough evidence of God, but atheists will find a way to put that into numbers and formulas and discredit it of any spiritual significance, because that is what they seek to do. That or they just dont have an eye for all the beautiful things in the world.
wich god are you talking about? , theres many who make claim for creating this wonderfull planet.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
sceptical thinking and spirituality dont mix at all
QFT!

I do have a question concerning this sig worthy point. If critical thinking doesn't mix with spirituality, that leaves credulous thinking as the alternative. If that's true, how do you distinguish between any claims? IOW, how do you know there isn't a hell but there is reincarnation? If you won't apply skeptical thought, then all claims become reasonable and probable don't they? Why were you not worshiping Sathya Sai Baba, a living god according to his followers? Or maybe Mitsuo Matayoshi or Claude Vorilhon for that matter? Why do you reject these claims?
 

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
wich god are you talking about? , theres many who make claim for creating this wonderfull planet.
I couldnt tell ya man, I know the basics of the main religions but my theory is that it was a group effort to create this universe. I dont know how many Gods it takes to make a massive ball of nitrogen and stuff then cause it to explode lol
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
^ who the fuck talks like that? lol anyways, you can indeed measure love, thanks to recent studies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp-r_f8-qz8&feature=related

And I'd have to say that this was a waste of time if you wanted to change the minds of atheists. They expect God to do a tap dance in front of them to prove he exists, why should God feel like he has something to prove? Its not like anything bad happens to the non believers (because there is no hell) they'll just get sent through another life for more learning and discovering till they're ready to escape reincarnation, or they'll just tap into their past life memories when they die and get rid of their ignorance (oh how the atheists are laughing at me now lol). You have to have an interest in spirituality if you want to find God, but sceptical thinking and spirituality dont mix at all so atheists wont put any effort into understanding spirituality (religion is not spirituality, but there is slivers of truth in almost all of them)... Evidence of God is everywhere but its not the fairy dust the atheists look for. The astounding, beautiful complexities of this amazing universe that my words give no justice to should be enough evidence of God, but atheists will find a way to put that into numbers and formulas and discredit it of any spiritual significance, because that is what they seek to do. That or they just dont have an eye for all the beautiful things in the world.
Hey! I just realized your post proves dragons, too! Check it:

And I'd have to say that this was a waste of time if you wanted to change the minds of atheists. They expect Dragons to do a tap dance in front of them to prove they exist, why should Dragons feel like they have something to prove? Its not like anything bad happens to the non believers (because there is no hell) they'll just get sent through another life for more learning and discovering till they're ready to escape Dragonland, or they'll just tap into their past life memories when they die and get rid of their ignorance (oh how the atheists are laughing at me now lol). You have to have an interest in Dragonology if you want to find Dragons, but sceptical thinking and Dragonology dont mix at all so atheists wont put any effort into understanding Dragonology (ancient myth is not Dragonology, but there is slivers of truth in almost all of them)... Evidence of Dragons is everywhere but its not the fairy dust the atheists look for. The astounding, beautiful complexities of this amazing universe that my words give no justice to should be enough evidence of Dragons, but atheists will find a way to put that into numbers and formulas and discredit it of any spiritual significance, because that is what they seek to do. That or they just dont have an eye for all the beautiful things in the world.


Who could defy this logic? Let's go find those dragons...
 

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
QFT!

I do have a question concerning this sig worthy point. If critical thinking doesn't mix with spirituality, that leaves credulous thinking as the alternative. If that's true, how do you distinguish between any claims? IOW, how do you know there isn't a hell but there is reincarnation? If you won't apply skeptical thought, then all claims become reasonable and probable don't they? Why were you not worshiping Sathya Sai Baba, a living god according to his followers? Or maybe Mitsuo Matayoshi or Claude Vorilhon for that matter? Why do you reject these claims?
You act like truth cant be found unless you apply skeptical thinking. Spirituality is a target for skeptics because theres no tangible evidence in plain sight for them to see and touch (like theres supposed to be such evidence). Like I said " The astounding, beautiful complexities of this amazing universe that my words give no justice to should be enough evidence of God" <-- Best tangible evidence for the non-believer I'd say... Not to mention the billion people who claim they experienced something supernatural, but not one of them was a scientist so EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM must of been lying or have been tricked by their brain, right? Even I seen a ghost once, though I did need the help of shrooms to tap into different parts of my brain to see it, I was just staring at the roof enjoying my trip when I seen a ripple in the air and it moved towards me like a wave of water and stopped at my head, then my head got cold. I thought it was cool but then got weirded out because a ghost was sitting on my face lol but thats the least important supernatural thing that happend to me... As for hell and reincarnation. Pope John Paul made a public announcement at the Vatican saying that hell was only made as a means of control and he apologized. He then said hell was just a state of mind like depression and misery. My interpretation is that hell is being cut off from happiness, hell is being cut off from God... As for reincarnation, I just assume one lifetime is not enough of a learning experience especially if you fuck that lifetime up lol Heres the first ten minutes of a documentary of a 5 year old claiming he had lived a passed life, ever since he was able to talk he talked about this passed life and the people in it, his story only getting more detailed as he aged with no inconsistencies. Theres many many documented cases around the world of this phenomenon. They even interview one kid who is his own grandpa, crazy shit! his story also adds up... Anyways, heres the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRs7fXjs_w
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
You act like truth cant be found unless you apply skeptical thinking. Spirituality is a target for skeptics because theres no tangible evidence in plain sight for them to see and touch (like theres supposed to be such evidence). Like I said " The astounding, beautiful complexities of this amazing universe that my words give no justice to should be enough evidence of God" <-- Best tangible evidence for the non-believer I'd say... Not to mention the billion people who claim they experienced something supernatural, but not one of them was a scientist so EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM must of been lying or have been tricked by their brain, right? Even I seen a ghost once, though I did need the help of shrooms to tap into different parts of my brain to see it, I was just staring at the roof enjoying my trip when I seen a ripple in the air and it moved towards me like a wave of water and stopped at my head, then my head got cold. I thought it was cool but then got weirded out because a ghost was sitting on my face lol but thats the least important supernatural thing that happend to me... As for hell and reincarnation. Pope John Paul made a public announcement at the Vatican saying that hell was only made as a means of control and he apologized. He then said hell was just a state of mind like depression and misery. My interpretation is that hell is being cut off from happiness, hell is being cut off from God... As for reincarnation, I just assume one lifetime is not enough of a learning experience especially if you fuck that lifetime up lol Heres the first ten minutes of a documentary of a 5 year old claiming he had lived a passed life, ever since he was able to talk he talked about this passed life and the people in it, his story only getting more detailed as he aged with no inconsistencies. Theres many many documented cases around the world of this phenomenon. They even interview one kid who is his own grandpa, crazy shit! his story also adds up... Anyways, heres the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRs7fXjs_w
Just a reminder, you forgot to answer MP's questions. I mean, you missed all of them:

1. how do you distinguish between any claims?

2. how do you know there isn't a hell but there is reincarnation?

3. If you won't apply skeptical thought, then all claims become reasonable and probable don't they?

4. Why were you not worshiping Sathya Sai Baba, a living god according to his followers?

5. Or maybe Mitsuo Matayoshi or Claude Vorilhon for that matter?

6. Why do you reject these claims?
 

cannofbliss

Well-Known Member
again all of these arguments that the OP stated have ALL BEEN proved useless and all have been disproven as having any weight...

look... there is no "design" to the universe... so stop it already religious and or superstitious fanatics...

there is NO OTHER WAY the universe could have panned out... doesnt make it fucking "supernatural"...

what you all nut jobs see as "order" and "symmetry" is nothing more than the result of you having NO CHOICE on how your senses and bodies have developed to perceive objects or the universe over billions of years...

the only thing that has ANY design to it is what humans have done...

for fuck sake people stop deluding yourselves further and just promulgating bullshit... please...

look... people just arent that fucking stupid anymore and thanks to REAL people who continue to do REAL scientific study, we now have a much better understanding of reality...

if you all want to try to dumb people down or do some crazy apologetic mental acrobatshit crazy logic and continue to distort and or withhold factual information from people to either put them back into the dark ages or keep them from real science then oh well i guess you certainly have the freedom to do so...

but just remember dont take what i say personally, just know that people arent going to fall for this shit anymore, and we all will become a much better world for it...

the first bullshit legalisms were religion, and we have way too much of that already in a modern society... :roll:
 

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
Just a reminder, you forgot to answer MP's questions. I mean, you missed all of them:

1. how do you distinguish between any claims?

2. how do you know there isn't a hell but there is reincarnation?

3. If you won't apply skeptical thought, then all claims become reasonable and probable don't they?

4. Why were you not worshiping Sathya Sai Baba, a living god according to his followers?

5. Or maybe Mitsuo Matayoshi or Claude Vorilhon for that matter?

6. Why do you reject these claims?
Oh YOU lol you so silly =) I only seen one of those questions that were worth answering and that was the hell and reincarnation one (which I believed I answered) the 5th one is kinda retarded in my opinion, and the rest of the questions I found boring because its what your kind has been repeating for ages, but I guess you see that as me making up excuses, to which I dont give a fuck because God is real, like it or not lol... And why are you confronting me with questions? I told you of my amazing supernatural experiences and you concluded that Im lying or Im bat-shit crazy. Well Im not lying so I guess that means Im bat-shit crazy lol why are you arguing with someone that you think is bat-shit crazy? Do you go to the psych ward and hold debates with the dementia patients? xD
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Oh YOU lol you so silly =) I only seen one of those questions that were worth answering and that was the hell and reincarnation one (which I believed I answered) the 5th one is kinda retarded in my opinion, and the rest of the questions I found boring because its what your kind has been repeating for ages, but I guess you see that as me making up excuses, to which I dont give a fuck because God is real, like it or not lol... And why are you confronting me with questions? I told you of my amazing supernatural experiences and you concluded that Im lying or Im bat-shit crazy. Well Im not lying so I guess that means Im bat-shit crazy lol why are you arguing with someone that you think is bat-shit crazy? Do you go to the psych ward and hold debates with the dementia patients? xD
Sorry. I saw that one coherent response of yours regarding native americans on another thread and assumed you got off the Crazy Train. My bad...
 

cannofbliss

Well-Known Member
its simple we all started out as light seeking bacteria... then it translates to hmmm... light good, dark bad... i mean just look at the fucking titles for fuck sake ;)

just a simple example of how culture and societies have developed their superstitions and incorporated it into our very language itself god=good>>>devil=evil....... i mean come on...:roll:

the sun doesnt rise nor does it set... the EARTH rotates PERIOD.

i know i told earlier in a post about telling atheists to not waste time arguing with superstitious people, and even though it appears that i am arguing "with" i am actually not arguing i am pointing out the ridiculousness of it...

not trying to "de-convert" anyone, just telling it like it is... ;)

p.s. (to the religious) dont bother trying to debate reality with me either it wont turn out well for you, but then again you may need a dose of common sense to snap you out of your typical humanistic and primitive behavioural patterns ;)
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Just a reminder, you forgot to answer MP's questions. I mean, you missed all of them:
Me and the Chief are pretty good friends now. Your questions upset him, and so in an effort to get people to stop pestering him, i'll try to offer some insight. Afterall, he loves when others think of him.


1. how do you distinguish between any claims?

You Tube videos, Self Bias, Novelty, Anti-establishment sentiment, Difficulty of Comprehension.

2. how do you know there isn't a hell but there is reincarnation?

Hell is too mainstream and reincarnation is fun and more appealing.

3. If you won't apply skeptical thought, then all claims become reasonable and probable don't they?

You used the word 'skeptical'. This removes all chance that the question will be considered and allows access to diatribe. Your limited view of spirituality is obvious by your honest attempt at communicating a simple question.

4. Why were you not worshiping Sathya Sai Baba, a living god according to his followers?

5. Or maybe Mitsuo Matayoshi or Claude Vorilhon for that matter?

These are the dumbest questions of all, who has ever heard of this stuff?

6. Why do you reject these claims?

You act as if something is only truthful when it's accurate. Your closed minded thinking is causing you to separate fantasy from reality. Silly atheist.
 

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
Me and the Chief are pretty good friends now. Your questions upset him, and so in an effort to get people to stop pestering him, i'll try to offer some insight. Afterall, he loves when others think of him.


1. how do you distinguish between any claims?

You Tube videos, Self Bias, Novelty, Anti-establishment sentiment, Difficulty of Comprehension.

2. how do you know there isn't a hell but there is reincarnation?

Hell is too mainstream and reincarnation is fun and more appealing.

3. If you won't apply skeptical thought, then all claims become reasonable and probable don't they?

You used the word 'skeptical'. This removes all chance that the question will be considered and allows access to diatribe. Your limited view of spirituality is obvious by your honest attempt at communicating a simple question.

4. Why were you not worshiping Sathya Sai Baba, a living god according to his followers?

5. Or maybe Mitsuo Matayoshi or Claude Vorilhon for that matter?

These are the dumbest questions of all, who has ever heard of this stuff?

6. Why do you reject these claims?

You act as if something is only truthful when it's accurate. Your closed minded thinking is causing you to separate fantasy from reality. Silly atheist.
We are indeed pals, I do like when people think of me but your but your attention to me is a bit creepy... Jus sayin... turn it down a notch man, I dont get down like that... I love how you say Im upset yet your frustration in your words is apparent xD
 

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Cheif is now #1 on the dumbest most unreasonable contradictory thinker on RIU, just my opinion, and just wanted you to know. I usually don't say mean things, but your willed ignorance is unforgivable. Much love.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
We are indeed pals, I do like when people think of me but your but your attention to me is a bit creepy... Jus sayin... turn it down a notch man, I dont get down like that... I love how you say Im upset yet your frustration in your words is apparent xD
So the only way in which I mischaracterized you was that I said you're upset? Noted.
 

cannofbliss

Well-Known Member
and lastly sorry to be such a dick about it, but sometimes its necessary...

and the real dick is religion as an allusion to the original saying religion is like a penis... goes... ;)

heres another take on it...

it's fine to have one...
its fine to talk about it...

but please don't go around trying to disguise it and hide it in the scientific popcorn... ;)
 
Top