People believe in those things because they need to but there is not a single piece of evidence supporting heaven/god. ''On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose'' They think they know but it doesn't mean they do. They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated. It doesn't seem to me that there could ever be a good purpose because what happens once you reach it? Perhaps we can't understand it now because our brain is not capable of understanding but imagining gods is not going to do anyone any good.
The whole earth and universe is proof for the existence of God. You ask, indirectly: "They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated." But you can't even figure out a purpose for life here. Stuff doesn't just happen anywhere. If people don't make it happen, what does? There is too much order and complexity in all of it, to say nothing about cause-and-effect, strict, rigidity of everything, to say that it happens by chance or accident. BTW, "chance" has only been found in things that people are too ignorant or incapable of understanding the true cause for. There isn't any chance in anything. Everything is planned and programmed. Complexity points at God. Religion explains the things of God that science is to inadequate to do. God answers by providing health to the religious people.  EDIT: The sperm and egg go on to life as an embryo; the embryo goes on to life as a fetus; the fetus goes on to life as person; the person goes on to real life in Heaven. If the person goes to Hell, consider that not all sperm or egg go on to embryo; not all embryo go on to fetus; not all fetuses go on to people. And some people never become smart enough to make it to Heaven. The whole universe is proof of zeus actually. You can't even figure out how to read what entropy actually is, why are you still debating me on anything? You have proven yourself already. You are desperate to prove god and make it real because otherwise there is nothing left, just death and meaningless existence, you are not strong enough to accept that. Just remember entropy as the years pass, and you become old, and weak, and decrepit. Then remember God, while you still have time. ''People can't be more intelligent because of entropy - badecker 2017'' |
|
|
|
So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo. You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets. You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.
OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin. Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3sWhich one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it. |
|
|
|
There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.
With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy. The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.
Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".
Your move...
Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space". Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?) You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all. I sure have, first of all by proving that you don't even know the laws you are trying to use to prove god existence. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684Links that you haven't been able to respond to a part from your simplistic ''circular argument'' bullshit because saying everything has a cause but god doesn't isn't stupid, right badecker? I am not going to take the time to run down your links. Why not? Because anybody who is a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact, and that much of what you link to is science theory at best. As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without. Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him. But, even if C&E was a part of God, there is no way of knowing anything about it. After all, we can't even track an atom or molecule of the wind as it travels around the globe, or wherever. Since we are so remote, why would you even think that we can track even a little of the nature of God? Except for you, that is. You understand that God exists, but you continue to deny Him. Kinda ignorant of you. I can understand how your lack of intelligence must continually ask questions about a God we will scientifically never know anything about. So, it would only be by the sheerest C&E "accidents" if you happened to become the one who turned out to be the scientist who could track a specific molecule of the wind. LOL. ''As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without.'' Prove it, you haven't proved that god is from outside the unvierse. ''Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him.'' Why not ''a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact'' A true scientist knows that nothing is 100% a fact but a theory gets really damn close to it, you are not a real scientist, you are a buffoon who doesn't even understand his own arguments. |
|
|
|
Not at all, religions are a relic from times when people needed an explanation for the unexplainable.
That's why they take a bunch of science observations, and make a scientific theory out of it. Then they start accepting the scientific theory as fact when they don't have proof it is fact. They are looking for something to believe in. And rather than believe in facts, they distort their fiction, and claim it is fact. They turn science into a religion for themselves. People are religious beings. They are also God-religious beings. Doesn't this thread make you hate being religious? Have you seen the reasons people give here for their belief in god? They are pathetic at best. It seems to me that 99% of religious people in this forum are fucking retards, no offense but fucking hell. |
|
|
|
People believe in those things because they need to but there is not a single piece of evidence supporting heaven/god. ''On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose'' They think they know but it doesn't mean they do. They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated. It doesn't seem to me that there could ever be a good purpose because what happens once you reach it? Perhaps we can't understand it now because our brain is not capable of understanding but imagining gods is not going to do anyone any good.
The whole earth and universe is proof for the existence of God. You ask, indirectly: "They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated." But you can't even figure out a purpose for life here. Stuff doesn't just happen anywhere. If people don't make it happen, what does? There is too much order and complexity in all of it, to say nothing about cause-and-effect, strict, rigidity of everything, to say that it happens by chance or accident. BTW, "chance" has only been found in things that people are too ignorant or incapable of understanding the true cause for. There isn't any chance in anything. Everything is planned and programmed. Complexity points at God. Religion explains the things of God that science is to inadequate to do. God answers by providing health to the religious people. EDIT: The sperm and egg go on to life as an embryo; the embryo goes on to life as a fetus; the fetus goes on to life as person; the person goes on to real life in Heaven. If the person goes to Hell, consider that not all sperm or egg go on to embryo; not all embryo go on to fetus; not all fetuses go on to people. And some people never become smart enough to make it to Heaven. The whole universe is proof of zeus actually. You can't even figure out how to read what entropy actually is, why are you still debating me on anything? You have proven yourself already. You are desperate to prove god and make it real because otherwise there is nothing left, just death and meaningless existence, you are not strong enough to accept that. |
|
|
|
There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.
With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy. The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.
Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".
Your move...
Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space". Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?) You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all. I sure have, first of all by proving that you don't even know the laws you are trying to use to prove god existence. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684Links that you haven't been able to respond to a part from your simplistic ''circular argument'' bullshit because saying everything has a cause but god doesn't isn't stupid, right badecker? |
|
|
|
How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is? https://i.imgur.com/O8IpMmi.jpgI have actually read an article that the earth is not really flat. And it is scientifically proven. Don't you see NASA's program where they capture pictures of EARTH from space? It's really a sphere but not a perfect one. It looks like a deformed sphere at all. Yes I see the liars and hoaxers at NASA and they're full of shitty CGI images. BTW do you have a reading comprehension problem? You still haven't explained how perspective stops lighting from reaching us when you claim the sun is so close, you always ignore things that you can't answer, why are you like this, you might have a real problem, go get checked bro. |
|
|
|
 Person A claims it's a train, person B claims it's the light at the end of the tunnel, person C claims person B is fucking mad because the tunnel is too long for the light to reach the other end. If person B is tied to the tracks will he cry and beg for their life or are they so confidant in their stupidity that they'll take the oncoming train like a man?  Theoretically, the photon (or the beam of photons, there really isn't a difference) can go an infinite distance, traveling all the while at a speed cc. |
|
|
|
Q: How can I prove to myself the earth is not flat for free?
A: Skype with someone on the other side of flat earth. Ask them if it is day or night. It will be opposite of yours.
In a flat earth, if one person could see the sun, literally everyone would be able to.
Fucking retard who doesn't understand perspective or fucking shill. Pick one. Says the guy that doesn't understand why you can't see the parallel sun rays LMAO Are you intentionally stupid? >Claims perspective causes vertical lines to converge. Fuck off retard. Claims somehow perspective doesn't allow you to see light coming from the sun fuck off idiot |
|
|
|
There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.
With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy. The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.
Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".
Your move...
Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space". Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?) |
|
|
|
Q: How can I prove to myself the earth is not flat for free?
A: Skype with someone on the other side of flat earth. Ask them if it is day or night. It will be opposite of yours.
In a flat earth, if one person could see the sun, literally everyone would be able to.
Fucking retard who doesn't understand perspective or fucking shill. Pick one. Says the guy that doesn't understand why you can't see the parallel sun rays LMAO Are you intentionally stupid? |
|
|
|
However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.
Actually, it's that you don't quite understand science correctly. There are two parts to science: 1. That which is readily known; 2. Theory, which isn't readily known, although it may come close at times. The part of entropy that you are talking about is theory. The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known. Your problem is that you constantly try to imply that entropy theory is readily known to be fact, when it is not. Consider your stupid idea that the beginning happens over and over. Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it, even though scientifically speaking, it might happen. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and all the tests of moon rocks are flawed in some way. Could happen, but not likely by a long shot. ''Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it'' You mean God? You simply didn't understand entropy correctly. You think that evolution can't happen because of entropy which again is simply wrong, evolution does not violate any scientific law. You also think people can't get smarter or we can't advance because of entropy which is again just plain wrong and there is plenty of evidence that we can indeed advance. ''The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.'' You mean wrong? Just admit that you didn't understand entropy correctly lol, stop being so pathetic. |
|
|
|
And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...
How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of. Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists. You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease. You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between). I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists...  So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space? The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists? We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists? Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right? Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were. The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being. But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are. However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct. |
|
|
|
Quit quoting stuff, do you not have an opinion?
''However, you should know that without higher meaning and purpose science itself becomes corrupt over time and and ultimately dies. '' Bullshit. First of all, no one knows if there is a higher meaning or purpose, as I said, heaven would still have no meaning or purpose. We are where we are thanks to science and a few very smart people. Religion doesn't help, it's useless.
On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose. It is only those who embrace the assumptions of modern nihilism or those who have not truly explored the foundations of their knowledge that suffer from this deficiency. You seem to have chosen certain nihilistic foundational principles and/or have structured your belief system as one would if those principles were true which is identical in consequence. I don't claim to have knowledge of heaven but I would agree that if one cannot find meaning and purpose in a finite worldly existence then the prospect of an infinite existence becomes something to be feared rather then celebrated. As for my personal opinion here it is: At its most pure and fundamental level knowledge is faith and faith is knowledge. You have rejected faith and are walking in search of 'light' to dispel darkness from the world. Are you certain you have not made a wrong turn and are instead walking deeper into shadow? Imagine for a moment that this is not an abstract philosophical question but a walk down a twisting and branching alleyway. First there is a single way with no choice but soon we come across a fork and from the single path we find two. To the right there is carefully laid cobblestone engraved with the words of theism. To the left there is newly pressed brick and a crisp printed sign labeled atheism.
As we walk down these paths we find the walls of our alleyway glowing with living and undulating writings. These are runic words and assumptions indeed the core of each choice. As we accept them they detach themselves from alley walls gently merging with and setting over us forming a fine film over our skin, eyes and ears. Their function is that of a filter interpreting and cataloging the world around us.
If we choose the brick road we soon come across a second fork. Here we see a dark and shadowy opening into nihilism and a large and particularly well worn path into hedonism. Small branches into esoteric philosophies can also be found. The road of hedonism leads to a smaller opening into ethical hedonism and finally a tiny path into utilitarianism. Here the road ends and we find ourselves facing a brick wall covered with the words and beliefs of the choice we have made. This is were my own journey took me the blind alley where I spent 15 years thinking I had arrived at end of the road.
Does rejecting atheism on purely utilitarian grounds bother me? On the contrary it is the purest, cleanest, and most liberating rejection of atheism, ethical hedonism and utilitarianism that I can possibly imagine. It is the final realization that the complex writings on the brick wall translate into a single sentence. "Wrong way turn around!"
The arguments in this thread should not be thought of as strong theist arguments. Indeed a true and strong believer will likely find them all a little off and a little odd like a TV whose tuning is sort of correct but just a bit wrong throwing static into the picture. They would correctly argue that it is through faith not through happiness that creates a true belief in God.
The words of faith, however, cannot reach those far along the brick road. They are blocked or interpreted as nonsensical by the filter of assumptions those on this road have adopted. To grasp these deeper arguments one must first turn around travel back to the original fork in the road. Only then as the assumptions of atheism peel away is possible to hear and truly consider the deeper arguments of faith.
The arguments herein will not prove convincing to all atheist as the filter each atheist had adopted is different. My sense of self preservation kept me far away from the shadowy road of nihilism but there are branches there that teach that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. That life is insignificant without purpose and that even continued existence is meaningless. For those that have fully accepted this belief it is possible that even utilitarian arguments of health and happiness will be filtered out as nonsensical.
My argument is that atheism is false. As for what is true I cannot help you for I have only taken a few steps down the cobblestone road and do not yet know where it will take me.
People believe in those things because they need to but there is not a single piece of evidence supporting heaven/god. ''On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose'' They think they know but it doesn't mean they do. They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated. It doesn't seem to me that there could ever be a good purpose because what happens once you reach it? Perhaps we can't understand it now because our brain is not capable of understanding but imagining gods is not going to do anyone any good. |
|
|
|
Islam and the holy book is the way through which we can improve our lives. Many of foreigner doctors are practicing the ways through which the holy book provide us guidance for good health. For example if we look at the prayer when a human being put his/her head on the ground the blood flow reach at the upper part of the body which is neck and brain in the head.
The so called Scientist are always changing their minds through their research, one time they said that the consumption of meat is not good, another time they said that not consuming meat is bad for one's health, they constantly change their opinion with every experiment or research that they make. They don't. Studies on food are extremely hard to make and extremely hard to be accurate. You wouldn't be writing this trash if it wasn't for scientists and smart people. We wouldn't have planes or cars or rockets if it wasn't for science, quit being stupid please. |
|
|
|
I will stick to science. So far it seems like there is indeed no purpose but who knows, religious people are desperate in trying to find meaning, heaven would still be pointless and will still have no purpose. When you are in heaven, what's your purpose? My assumption is not purely based on faith, it is based on evidence and I agree that science still has a lot more to do.
Science is great. I have nothing against science. However, you should know that without higher meaning and purpose science itself becomes corrupt over time and and ultimately dies. Here are some excerpts from a book on this topic that drives this point home. Not even trying: the corruption of real sciencehttp://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/2013/07/not-even-trying-corruption-of-real.html?m=1Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality...
A few decades ago one could assume that published work was honest and competent (except in specific cases); now one must assume that published work is dishonest and incompetent (except in specific cases).
A few decades ago one could assume that high status (“successful”) scientists were honest and competent (except in specific cases); now one must assume that famous and powerful scientists are dishonest and incompetent (except in specific cases).
*
Overall it seems that things have gone backwards, and not just slightly.
Yet research activity (personnel, funding, publishing, communicating) have all increased exponentially – doubling in volume every 15 or so years (doubling every decade in medical research. And China has exploded with research activity in the past 10 years).
So there has been massive expansion of inputs with first stagnation then decline of outputs. Something has gone terribly wrong: not just slightly wrong, but terribly wrong.
...
How did we get from useful and real science to useless research bureaucracies generating hype and spin for the public relations industry?
Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive, significant and indeed qualitative decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their employing institutions, and between scientists and their institutions and the outside world.
In a nutshell – science has gone from being basically honest to basically dishonest (and in the process gone from being real science to professional research).
...
Scientists are usually too cautious and timid to risk telling outright lies about important things, or to invent and emphasize fake data; but instead they push the envelope of exaggeration, selectivity and distortion as far as possible. And tolerance for this kind of untruthfulness has greatly increased over recent years.
So it is now routine, normal, indeed required behaviour for scientists deliberately to exaggerate, to ‘hype’ the significance of their status and performance, and ‘spin’ the importance of their research.
...
Furthermore, it is entirely normal and unremarkable for ordinary ‘scientists’ to spend their entire professional life doing work they know in their hearts to be trivial or bogus – preferring that which promotes their career over that which has the best chance of advancing science.
...
Indeed, senior scientists in the best places are clever, hard-working and intelligent enough rapidly to become expert at hyping mundane research to create a misleading impression of revolutionary importance. Far from resisting, or fighting, the degradation of science; the senior researchers at the ‘best’ places have led (indeed driven) their subordinates into a morass of corruption..
It is a kind of Gresham’s Law at work; when dishonest research is treated as if it were real science; then bad research drives out the good.
Quit quoting stuff, do you not have an opinion? ''However, you should know that without higher meaning and purpose science itself becomes corrupt over time and and ultimately dies. '' Bullshit. First of all, no one knows if there is a higher meaning or purpose, as I said, heaven would still have no meaning or purpose. We are where we are thanks to science and a few very smart people. Religion doesn't help, it's useless. |
|
|
|
It’s astonishing to me that anyone needs convincing that the earth is spherical. Even basic science classes can provide plenty of evidence for this obvious fact! I imagine that have such a poor understanding of the world around would also mean a poor understanding of other things, including investment and cryptocurrencies.
What piece of evidence is most convincing to you that we're on a spinning globe? Also, can you prove that you honestly believe we're on a spinning globe, what evidence do you have to prove this? The reason I ask is because this is a conspiracy and there are many people who pretend that the world is a globe and they will feign belief, fabricate evidence and twist your perceptions to make you believe at any cost. Dude, do you understand that people stopped debating whether the earth was flat or not hundreds of years ago? It has been proven that it's not, long long ago. No one is debating that anymore only nutjobs like you. Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? It's a conspiracy to what, what is the point of this. |
|
|
|
''God ultimately is beyond science.'' Yeah yeah I heard that many times, so is the other thousands of gods. What is the logic that leads to the conclusion that god is real? That same logic could lead to all kind of different gods not to mention to the other hundreds of possibilities (We live in a computer simulation, aliens from another dimension created this universe, this universe creates and destroys itself in a loop, some other force/process created the universe, etc etc)
There is no evidence for any god just like there is no evidence aliens did, quit the bullshit.
The fact that we are here having this conversation right now leads by logical necessity to a first cause that led to this moment. What one believes about the nature of that first cause is an assumption or an act of faith. If you assume its all random chance without higher purpose then you have chosen your assumption and thus your religion. It is a belief system that shapes one's view of the universe and your place in it. It also rest ultimately on a "truth" that is not proven but chosen. Not all religions believe in God. I have nothing against people who embrace this worldview. I would only point to multiple studies highlighting the harmful effects of this choice and ask you voluntary embrace a potentially toxic worldview when their are superior alternatives? I will stick to science. So far it seems like there is indeed no purpose but who knows, religious people are desperate in trying to find meaning, heaven would still be pointless and will still have no purpose. When you are in heaven, what's your purpose? My assumption is not purely based on faith, it is based on evidence and I agree that science still has a lot more to do. |
|
|
|
I don't think there are any scientific proofs to show that we all came from Adam and Eve but the same could be said about evolution. The theory of evolution is just plain stupid, I don't know why many people believe that theory.
I believe that God exists and I don't need any kind of scientific proof for believing in him. I have seen many people who were once blind, deaf and paralyzed being healed . If you want proof just see on of Pastor Benny Hinn's ministry videos.
Nice funny comment mate. |
|
|
|
Windows doesn't like it, it just played a black screen. Don't bother bro, it was obviously cgi like all the other thousands of videos/photos. Don't let anyone fool you, spread the word, earth is flat. Be careful not to get too close to the dome because its electrified with 4 quadrillion volts. Everything science has discovered for the past 2000 years is fake and cgi as well, fucking shills, trying to make us think the world is not flat for some reason. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
