Bitcoin Forum

.

Meaning and reality only exist in the individual minds that create it and interpret it.

Recent experiments suggest the universe is infinite.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

Isn't it more likely for there to be something, anything, than nothing at all.
Complete nothingness is a hard concept to grasp, if even a legitimate one.

I have never thought to ask you this, but....

Do you believe in Dinosaurs ? ....and how old do you believe the Earth to be ?

No, I was serious....even though I am usually a douche about religion.....lol

Islam is math/science friendly, right ?

Christians make me laugh some times....

THAT sounds about right. If he/she were a US citizen, they were also most likely a Republican as well.

Life has whatever purpose you give it. No more, no less. There is no hidden meaning, no greater truth. We are here because of an exact series of events that led to this moment, and our purpose and meaning comes from our own dreams, aspirations, and experiances.

That's how I see it anyhow.

Cause and effect are dependent upon time and our relationship with time.
From a non-temporal (timey-wimey) point of view there is no cause and effect.

A question like 'what existed before time' is meaningless because we'd need a preexisting temporal frame of reference in which to make the observations.
It's only our relationship with time that makes us think in temporal terms - reality isn't dependent on our limited point of view.
The big bang isn't really an historical event since it didn't 'happen' in time. It's just one end of a temporal object viewed from a very limited human perspective.

The existence of God or otherwise here is kind of irrelevant, because even if we had proof of the existence of God it still wouldn't be clear what we should do about it  - should we sing hymns? light incense? sacrifice goats? wear funny hats?

I can prove the existence of the Sun, but it's mere existence isn't enough to make me want to worship it.

So we need to believe in the Quran and not just God? - that's a big leap for Atheists. Not only God but a book too. 
You see how many layers there are to this problem? Why should I believe in the quran? Why not the Bhagavad Gita? Crowley's 'Book of the Law'? The Bible? The Book of Mormon? - they all make the same claims.
And since you believe in the Quran, is your understanding of it perfect? Are you a Shiite or a Sunni? Who's interpretation is correct?
I can't speak arabic so how am I even able to hear the word of God to know what I should do? I then have to believe the translator who's just some ordinary person. I have to believe in one tradition, or one Imam who I accidentally learn about Islam from, and I have to believe in my own minds understanding (which is the least trustworthy thing in the world)

While this is not my point of view, why can't there not have been a first cause? Why can't everything simply have existed eternally as it is now? Why is that more absurd than requiring a starting point?

I completely agree. Atheism and strict deism are virtually indistiguishable from a philosophical perspective. I never involve myself in arguments about whether a god exists. I completely concede the possibility of a god's existence, assuming the idea that something can exist outside the realm of existence has any meaning at all.

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

What I do argue is that whatever god may exist is utterly irrelevant to our daily lives, and does not interact with our universe, at least in ways that are measurable or meaningful. Miracles and supernatural revelation have no place in our (admittedly limited) understanding of reality.

Existence precedes essence.

That is all.

Like I said, arguments about the existence of god are pointless because they go in circles. Neither side can agree on anything.

But I will say this: If god is arbitrarily assigned the property of "always existing," than nature can be as well. To deny this is special pleading.

If the statement "God has always existed because it is his nature to always exist" is allowed, then the statement  "the natural order has always existed because that's just what the natural order does, because I say so" is equally viable. I think both statements are silly.

 We don't know and can't know what happened before the universe existed in it's current state, if there ever was a "before" in the first place. To claim to know one way or the other is arrogance in the highest degree and an outright denial of the limits of human knowledge.

So you might as well throw that argument door if you really must argue for the existence of god.

"First Cause"

Is that an Atheist's word for "God"? You spell it using uppercase too. Kinda cute.


My purpose of life: Pu**y! (no not Puppy)

I bloody love putty! =D
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSV7EXLv7nXm2RrAvOZc0mvtCEZYq3uIcGXtoYiX_hVc2EQeFh5

That's gross.

From a biological standpoint when we think about the existence of pussy and limited pussy, the only explanation that our thoughts can conclude is that there must exist pussy. Without pussy, nothing would exist, pussy would have come from nothing, or would have had no start point at all. This would be absurd, as it would not explain why pussy possessed specific attributes that they did not give themselves.

In the past, pussyo thinkers have advanced the idea that pussy came about as a result of being caused by another, previous set of pussys, which in turn were caused by pussy, ad infinitum.

Even if there is a god, the universe behaves as if there isn't one.

Incidentally, this is why I didn't invest with pirate - even if he wasn't running a ponzi, he behaved as if he was.

This...


and this.

Putty? That's Silly!

The most thoughtful contribution to this thread so far!

I'm a big believer in the Big Bang Theory myself. And your explanation correlates.