Kuribo64
Views: 8,592,222 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
07-17-18 12:04 AM
Guest:

0 users reading What are your beliefs? | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - What are your beliefs? New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Baby Luigi
Posted on 09-11-16 10:46 PM Link | #77145
Posted by SuperMario64DS
I think the whole idea of "spirits" is that they exist beyond our physical world - it's too narrow minded to presume that our universe is all that there is and all that will ever be.


So....you mean you're saying that it could possibly.....not exist after all? I mean, we can't trace any evidence of spirits at all, nothing, nada, zip. Saying that it could have happened but we can't trace anything at all because "lol unexplained supernatural bullshit" isn't something that is falsifiable, hence why we totally reject these supernatural thoughts as merely figments of what the human brain is capable of.

Posted by SuperMario64DS
That's why I'm always flabbergasted that evolution boils down to "it's always existed", and is presented as the "smart" alternative to intelligent design. Both assume something has always existed (God, the material of the universe), and so both take a great deal of faith. I'd figure something with a mind composed such an elaborate system.


Evolution doesn't boil down to "it always existed". That kind of speak is very similar to people who try to refute evolution because they have basically a first grader understanding of it. Evolution is stating that our life has evolved from simple chemical reactions, with natural selection going on, favoring species that have traits that allow them to successfully reproduce and thus having millions and millions of offsprings to have said traits eventually become mainstream.

Evolution is not a "faith" as you claim it is. Evolution has plenty of hard data and evidence for its existence. Evolution was even recorded live from bacteria. The difference between evolution and intelligent design is that the first one has been systematically studied by scientists, has very strong data that supports the theory, and has been countlessly accepted by peer review studies. The other one is just blind faith, with nothing falsifiable, no evidence for its existence, nothing, aside from lol god claims.

Posted by SuperMario64DS
We can not understand how something (God) can exist without being created itself because our universe is limited - it cannot exist without a creator - and therefore the notion that everything had always existed or somehow created itself is illogical. The understanding is there, but it's just not possible to understand within a finite universe (something that was created) which is where faith comes in. The very fact that spontaneous generation is impossible means by the laws of our universe - everything we understand - means we cannot make a conclusion on the existence of creation or reality. This is where the idea of faith comes in. You believe in something, whether the opposing side offers morals you'd rather not exchange, or you've actually tried to establish a relationship with the transcending Creator of the Universe (and therefore you know what is true to be true - by faith).


Yes we can exist without a creator. The mechanics of evolution are driven by itself. It is logical to think that the universe created itself without a creator, the Big Bang Theory, which is universally accepted by science, does explain how our universe is right now, perfectly without resorting to figments of human imagination.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain spontaneous generation anyway. It just shows how little you know about how the Big Bang Theory works.

Posted by SuperMario64DS
To disregard the existence of God because He cannot have a creator is to disregard the idea that the Universe had always existed: you cannot believe exclusively in evolution on that basis.


There's a lot of evidence supporting the lack of God and there's next to no evidence that supports a God's existence.

Posted by SuperMario64DS
On that basis, Evolution throws itself out the door. It attempts to find a logical explanation for life, within our universe, but relies on an illogical basis. It's not a solid contender, and all we're left with is an intelligent design.


Evolution does not explain how life was generated. Evolution explains why we are complex today, why we have all of those traits, why bananas are easy to eat, why birds can fly, why humans are intelligent. The word you're looking for is abiogenesis, something completely different from evolution.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 09-11-16 10:54 PM (rev. 3 of 09-11-16 10:57 PM) Link | #77147
SuperMario64DS, wow, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I think the whole idea of "spirits" is that they exist beyond our physical world - it's too narrow minded to presume that our universe is all that there is and all that will ever be.

How is it "narrow-minded"? You can believe whatever the hell you want, but if they exist beyond the physical world, you might as well assume they don't exist. That's why it's important for something to be falsified because with bullshit beliefs, you can keep piling on ad hoc hypotheses when it's much simpler per occam's razor to assume they don't exist. Anyway, I don't take it you like materialist views very well. I accept materialist views because I don't think I have to believe in ghosts or fairies or pixies to understand how my world works.

Evolution doesn't "take faith": it's evidence-based. It's consistent with observed phenomena and data in every scientific field.

Where the hell did you get to the conclusion that "evolution boils down to 'it's always existed', and is presented as the 'smart' alternative to intelligent design."? That's a problem with people who try to disregard evolution, they straw man and build their argument on nonsense premise of what they *think* evolution is. Your entire argument assumes that evolution explains how life originated when it does not. I do not like how you describe evolution as a "smart" alternative to intelligent design. Intelligent design is gussied-up creationism, and it's, frankly, rank bullshit. Evolution is a solid scientific theory. It has tons of evidence, it explains precisely how it works, it explains observed phenomena very well, and it can be falsified. Same thing with gravity, germs, and quantum mechanics.

"which is where faith comes in". That's just a classic "god of the gaps" or "deus ex machina". Just because we can't explain everything in our observed world, it doesn't validate any sort of faith (in terms of explaining reality). Those must stand in their own. There is no evidence for intelligent design (aside from "oh it looks complex so someone should have designed it", but that's still a pile of crap and something evolution can readily explain) and it does not explain how it works. Intelligent design is horsecrap.

The very fact that spontaneous generation is impossible means by the laws of our universe - everything we understand - means we cannot make a conclusion on the existence of creation or reality.

lol no, you really don't understand how evolution works. Evolution is not spontaneous generation, nothing about the big bang or other scientific theories actually violates any laws of the universe, and we can make a good explanation for all observed phenomena. "Existence of creation", however, has no legs to stand on.

As I said, I'd figure something with a mind composed such an elaborate system, and that, given the very existence and laws of our universe, nothing cannot create something.

Evolution is perfectly capable of transforming simple life to extremely complex life forms given hundreds of millions of years. You don't understand it.

On that basis, Evolution throws itself out the door. It attempts to find a logical explanation for life, within our universe, but relies on an illogical basis. It's not a solid contender, and all we're left with is an intelligent design.

It's totally logical and rational. It explains very well how life is as it is. It does not explain how it originated, but how it changed.

Even if evolution was somehow illogical, intelligent design still needs to have the same bulk of evidence and have all the tenets of scientific theory. It does not, and no one can offer an explanation for exactly how intelligent design works. No one does actual research on intelligent design or creationism. All they do it outreach. Because when it stands up to scientific scrutiny, it's all bogus.

Tahcryon
Posted on 09-12-16 04:26 AM Link | #77158
Posted by Baby Luigi
If spirits exist, then, surely, with our advanced technology, we would have detected them by now?

I never understood statements like this. What do you mean when you say "advanced technology", what are you using to measure how advanced our technology is? A thousand years later, we'll still be calling our technology "advanced technology".
Posted by Baby Luigi
How is it "narrow-minded"? You can believe whatever the hell you want,
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
SuperMario64DS, wow, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Chill. There's no need to turn a normal, civilized discussion into a little ragefest.
Posted by Baby Luigi
There's a lot of evidence supporting the lack of God and there's next to no evidence that supports a God's existence.

Hmm, do you have any links to this "proof" that God doesn't exist?


____________________


[04/15/2018]gridatttack: I still think the whole smg2.5 team are still in middle school lol
[04/15/2018]gridatttack: and they are 14yrs old
__________

cosmological: There's no one in Russia who doesn't agree with Putin, probably because his ideas are that great



StapleButter
Posted on 09-12-16 04:42 AM Link | #77161
blarg. if people can't talk about their beliefs without getting angry at others for not believing the same, I'll have to close this.


remember, this kind of shit is only a few steps away from ISIS, the crusades, etc...

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

cros107
Posted on 09-12-16 11:58 AM Link | #77181
I don't think people are getting angry at others believing the same, but people are getting annoyed at each other over what they are saying about other stuff. Oh, right, if I haven't already posted in this thread, I'm an atheist.

____________________
No, not doing SM64DS hacking, just here for the waffles.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-12-16 12:11 PM Link | #77182
Posted by Tahcryon
Hmm, do you have any links to this "proof" that God doesn't exist?


The most important argument is that there's no evidence in favor of God, and thus no reason to believe in it. But there are some explicit reasons to doubt God's existence:

* The fact that we've continually had to rely on God for explaining how our world works, until a scientific explanation came along and made it irrelevant (god of the gaps).

* Numerous logical inconsistencies in the Bible, including how God is all-knowing and all-loving, but a complete bigot.

* That the brain clearly controls human consciousness, and physical damage to it can alter your personality, is evidence against consciousness being contained within a soul.

SuperMario64DS
Posted on 09-12-16 02:24 PM (rev. 2 of 09-12-16 02:43 PM) Link | #77184
I do not understand what prompted such responses... Simply stating that I do not know what I'm talking about with an explanation is rude.

Guys... The basis of this thread was to express your beliefs - not berate others for theirs. I don't mind what you believe at all; I was just doing as the thread asked and shared my beliefs. I didn't say anything rude, but I would like to address this:

Posted by SuperMario64DS
I think the whole idea of "spirits" is that they exist beyond our physical world - it's too narrow minded to presume that our universe is all that there is and all that will ever be.


I meant to say it's silly to assume a "spirit", whatever it is, would be "detectable" in our world. Narrow in the scope of implying that anything and all that these is confined to our understanding of our universe. That would be trying to apply our logic to something illogical - that is all.

I think the truth is we're all stating things we're unsure of to strengthen our arguments, and letting our prejudices cause conflict in a place it was not asked for.

---

If I may elaborate on what I find to be misconceptions on my writing:

Posted by Baby Luigi
So....you mean you're saying that it could possibly.....not exist after all? ... Saying that it could have happened but we can't trace anything at all because "lol unexplained supernatural bullshit" isn't something that is falsifiable, hence why we totally reject these supernatural thoughts as merely figments of what the human brain is capable of.


Yes, I'm saying it's possible it could not exist at all, but to dismiss it entirely on the basis that we cannot perceive it is illogical itself.

Posted by Baby Luigi
Evolution doesn't boil down to "it always existed".


I mean, it's basis depends on the facts that the material - bacteria - whatever it is, has existed and always existed to become life as we know it now. As an argument against intelligent design, it fails to explain where this matter came from. For all he know, the creator, whoever it is, created the matter and intended for it to evolve. It doesn't work as an argument against design without an origin for its material.

By that definition, evolution (without an understanding of its origins - an "unknown") is a faith.

Posted by Baby Luigi
It is logical to think that the universe created itself without a creator, the Big Bang Theory


The Big Bag Theory depends on the existence of pre existing material. Any other explanation is... illogical, like the existence of a creator. In one case, we have nothing forming itself, and in the other, we have something unknown forming something. Both are beyond reason we can perceive, but one offers a purpose while the other offers everything having been set into motion by nothing.

Posted by Baby Luigi
The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain spontaneous generation anyway. It just shows how little you know about how the Big Bang Theory works.


I was not saying it was. Either you believe everything had always existed, or it generated from nothing. Evolutionists traditionally (not modernly) cited spontaneous generation as the reason for the universe's matter. Since it's been disproven as illogical (And therefore would need an illogical solution to exist - such as something to create it), the reasoning for the universe's matter (or what nothingness sparked the big bang) has remained something that cannot be proven.

Evolution attempts to explain a logical origin for the existence of life. The evolving part is logical, but what it evolved from is not.

Posted by Baby Luigi
There's a lot of evidence supporting the lack of God and there's next to no evidence that supports a God's existence.


This is true, and I specifically avoided saying we have evidence for God by saying it's centered around "faith".

---

I'm not rejecting evolution. I'm rejecting evolution as an alternative to intelligent design. Who's to say evolution wasn't a part of the creation process, or created organisms evolved? And for evolution to exist as the alternative to intelligent design, it would need an origin for existence's matter, or whatever put the big bang into motion.

"An object cannot be set in motion without an external force." - That's a well known law of our reality. Well, what put the universe into motion - what sparked the big bang? Something did. And logically, whatever put it into motion is beyond laws of our universe.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-12-16 02:40 PM Link | #77187
Posted by SuperMario64DS
I do not understand what prompted such responses... Simply stating that I do not know what I'm talking about with an explanation is rude.


Their whole responses to you were explanations.

Yes, I'm saying it's possible it could not exist at all, but to dismiss it entirely on the basis that we cannot perceive it is illogical itself.


Dismissing religion is mainly about a lack of belief. Sure, its claims could be true, but if it's impossible to prove or disprove, and there's no compelling reason to believe it, why do so?

I mean, it's basis depends on the facts that the material - bacteria - whatever it is, has existed and always existed to become life as we know it now. As an argument against intelligent design, it fails to explain where this matter came from. For all he know, the creator, whoever it is, created the matter and intended for it to evolve. It doesn't work as an argument against design without an origin for its material.

By that definition, evolution (without an understanding of its origins - an "unknown") is a faith.


There's a difference between abiogenesis (how the first living organism appeared) and evolution (how organisms have changed over time). Evolution can be accepted without knowing how life began, and there's overwhelming evidence for it. Accepting evolution leaves no reason to believe that God designed life.

God creating life and life occurring through abiogenesis both require something to exist from nothing. But there's no more compelling reason to believe it was God than to believe it was abiogenesis. We know that the basic chemical reactions to create life can occur naturally, given enough time.

The Big Bag Theory depends on the existence of pre existing material. Any other explanation is... illogical, like the existence of a creator. In one case, we have nothing forming itself, and in the other, we have something unknown forming something. Both are beyond reason we can perceive, but one offers a purpose while the other offers everything having been set into motion by nothing.


No, in both cases, you have something from nothing. Either the simple matter and energy of the universe, or the most complex being possible - an omnipotent and omniscient being.

I was not saying it was. Either you believe everything had always existed, or it generated from nothing. Evolutionists traditionally (not modernly) cited spontaneous generation as the reason for the universe's matter. Since it's been disproven as illogical (And therefore would need an illogical solution to exist - such as something to create it), the reasoning for the universe's matter (or what nothingness sparked the big bang) has remained something that cannot be proven.


Everything, including God, would need something to create it by that logic. It's no more rational than spontaneous generation (or eternal existence) of the universe's matter.

Evolution attempts to explain a logical origin for the existence of life. The evolving part is logical, but what it evolved from is not.


As said above, evolution is a logical explanation of how life developed, and abiogenesis is a logical explanation for the origin of life. They're independent.

This is true, and I specifically avoided saying we have evidence for God by saying it's centered around "faith".


Okay, so why not just admit that belief in religion is just faith? You're attempting to shoehorn in a faux-rational explanation that makes no sense.

Tahcryon
Posted on 09-12-16 02:46 PM Link | #77188
Posted by Marionumber1
The most important argument is that there's no evidence in favor of God, and thus no reason to believe in it. But there are some explicit reasons to doubt God's existence:

* The fact that we've continually had to rely on God for explaining how our world works, until a scientific explanation came along and made it irrelevant (god of the gaps).

* Numerous logical inconsistencies in the Bible, including how God is all-knowing and all-loving, but a complete bigot.

* That the brain clearly controls human consciousness, and physical damage to it can alter your personality, is evidence against consciousness being contained within a soul.

Fair points. Though, by 'God' I wasn't referring to the Bible one. I meant 'a God', as in a God that is not the one depicted in the holy books. Wouldn't it be possible that a God that is not the one mentioned in the books, in fact, exists? One that hasn't ever been involved with our planet? If such a being exists, there is no way that we can either prove or disprove it, since a major problem (The Bible) has been removed from the equation.

(I guess I should say that I don't believe in God/Gods, it's just an interesting topic to discuss, I guess :v)

____________________


[04/15/2018]gridatttack: I still think the whole smg2.5 team are still in middle school lol
[04/15/2018]gridatttack: and they are 14yrs old
__________

cosmological: There's no one in Russia who doesn't agree with Putin, probably because his ideas are that great



Marionumber1
Posted on 09-12-16 02:51 PM Link | #77189
Posted by Tahcryon
Fair points. Though, by 'God' I wasn't referring to the Bible one. I meant 'a God', as in a God that is not the one depicted in the holy books. Wouldn't it be possible that a God that is not the one mentioned in the books, in fact, exists? One that hasn't ever been involved with our planet? If such a being exists, there is no way that we can either prove or disprove it, since a major problem (The Bible) has been removed from the equation.


It's certainly possible, but there's no compelling reason to believe it. Anyone can make an unfalsifiable claim (Russell's teapot is an example), but the fact that you can't disprove it isn't reason to believe it.

And the fact that we've kept relying on "god of the gaps" until science explained things still applies. We keep finding new reasons to minimize God's role in explaining the universe, and it's reasonable to think that trend will continue. It seems like God is just a crutch until we actually figure things out.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-12-16 02:52 PM Link | #77190
a God as in an almighty, supernatural entity, could be anything

who knows if that entity even has a physical iteration

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

SuperMario64DS
Posted on 09-12-16 03:32 PM (rev. 4 of 09-12-16 03:44 PM) Link | #77193
Posted by Marionumber1
Their whole responses to you were explanations.


Sorry - early misconception.

Posted by Marionumber1
Dismissing religion is mainly about a lack of belief. Sure, its claims could be true, but if it's impossible to prove or disprove, and there's no compelling reason to believe it, why do so?


You believe it because you have faith, and that faith is founded on something. It's the same for both cases.

Posted by Marionumber1
There's a difference between abiogenesis (how the first living organism appeared) and evolution (how organisms have changed over time). Evolution can be accepted without knowing how life began, and there's overwhelming evidence for it. Accepting evolution leaves no reason to believe that God designed life.

God creating life and life occurring through abiogenesis both require something to exist from nothing. But there's no more compelling reason to believe it was God than to believe it was abiogenesis. We know that the basic chemical reactions to create life can occur naturally, given enough time.


Before I saw this post after I made an edit to my previous post. I touch on this.

Posted by Marionumber1
Everything, including God, would need something to create it by that logic. It's no more rational than spontaneous generation (or eternal existence) of the universe's matter.


This is a misconception.

This goes back to the thing I said about "narrow vision":

The point is the existence of anything within the logic of our universe depends on an illogical origin. The universe cannot have created itself.; the universe cannot have come from nothing. As you said, that is not logical. This conundrum is simply a part of our universe - nothing can occur from nothing. Clearly, something illogical occured for it to exist at all with its laws. The Universe, in itself and its laws, cannot have created itself. Something beyond the universe - something that had always been beyond the limitations of this universe - only something without these limitations can first make creation, and then impose logical limitations that on that creation that disallow the idea that it created itself.

Anything else either wraps around back to it's beginning as states its very existence is illogical, or there's that element of faith in the fact that the Universe has been eternal.

Posted by Marionumber1
As said above, evolution is a logical explanation of how life developed, and abiogenesis is a logical explanation for the origin of life. They're independent.


The popular collection of theories as an alternative to intelligent design is often grouped and termed "Evolution", even if evolution is its own theory.

"Evolution", as a complete alternative to intelligent design, depends upon something unknown, like God. My point is a certain level of trust is required to accept either, and so neither is in a position to criticise the other for faith in the unknown.

Posted by Marionumber1
Okay, so why not just admit that belief in religion is just faith? You're attempting to shoehorn in a faux-rational explanation that makes no sense.


That's what I said... Faith. I never said it wasn't. I stated the exact opposite, as you quoted. I even elaborate in my first post.

That's the entire point. You make a relationship with the deity, and that's how you know it's true. It's parallel to attempted (I only say "attempted" because none have been proven yet) explainations and believing in them based off their reasoning.

If this is all meant to disprove a certain religious sect, you're barking up the wrong tree. I see you've make statments such as "The bible is full of inconsistencies" and "God is a bigot". Please note I have not defined who God is. Mohammed? Christ? If we want to talk about Christ or Mohammed, we can; this is simply an argument for intelligent design. You're faith is founded on your own.

Also, I'm 99% sure this is about sharing you're beliefs, not defending the damn thing. I took it that this thread's purpose was to gain enlightenment on the views of others. Since we all claim peace, and we're all supposedly so progressive and tolerant, can we agree to disagree? It's the moral thing. You walk away with a new idea.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-12-16 03:48 PM Link | #77195
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I do want to clarify my own statements:

Posted by SuperMario64DS
The point is the existence of anything within the logic of our universe depends on an illogical origin. The universe cannot have created itself.; the universe cannot have come from nothing. As you said, that is not logical. This conundrum is simply a part of our universe - nothing can occur from nothing. Clearly, something illogical occured for it to exist at all with its laws. The Universe, in itself and its laws, cannot have created itself. Something beyond the universe - something that had always been beyond the limitations of this universe - only something without these limitations can first make creation, and then impose logical limitations that on that creation that disallow the idea that it created itself.

Anything else either wraps around back to it's beginning as states its very existence is illogical, or there's that element of faith in the fact that the Universe has been eternal.


No, I didn't say that the universe can't have come from nothing. I'm saying that whether or not you believe in a god, there is always something coming from nothing: either the universe or that god. Religion is not a more rational explanation, despite your attempts to twist it into one.

The popular collection of theories as an alternative to intelligent design is often grouped and termed "Evolution", even if evolution is its own theory.

"Evolution", as a complete alternative to intelligent design, depends upon something unknown, like God. My point is a certain level of trust is required to accept either, and so neither is in a position to criticise the other for faith in the unknown.


Those people that group abiogenesis and evolution together are wrong. The initial creation of life and what life does after its creation are totally independent. Evolution only relies on life existing in some way, not how it came to be. The point is that evolution is a compelling explanation for how life got to where it is today, without the need for an intelligent creator to be designing it.

If you disagree about abiogenesis, then discuss that. But stop tying it to evolution.

If this is all meant to disprove a certain religious sect, you're barking up the wrong tree. I see you make statments such as "The bible is full of inconsistencies" and "God is a bigot". Please note I have not defined who God is. Mohammed? Christ? This is simply an argument for intelligent design. You're faith is founded on your own.


My reason mentioning inconsistencies in the Bible was specific to a certain religion (though many others have that similar problem). But the other two were much more general. I think there are problems with religion as a whole and specific sects of it.

SuperMario64DS
Posted on 09-12-16 04:06 PM (rev. 7 of 09-12-16 04:25 PM) Link | #77199
Posted by Marionumber1
No, I didn't say that the universe can't have come from nothing. I'm saying that whether or not you believe in a god, there is always something coming from nothing: either the universe or that god. Religion is not a more rational explanation, despite your attempts to twist it into one.


I don't believe I said you did, but to cut a creator out leaves it at nothing presently ('Nothing' can be perceived two ways here: matter spontaneously generated out of nothing, or matter has always existed, and therefore 'no thing' is responsible for its creation)

"Nothing" is a concept in our universe - who's to say it exists "beyond"? It's logical that something outside of the realm of universe - our universe in which nothing cannot create something - can have no creator. The limitations imposed on our universe prevent such a thing from occuring from within itself, so it must be external, and, oddly, our universe allows us to grasp the concept of illogic. As it stands, the material in our universe cannot be self created, which leaves (once again) faith in the eternal god that is matter.

And, once again, our universe is not stagnant, as its law would dictate without a hand to get going. Something set it into motion.

We only understand the concepts of creation and having a creator because we were created, and it.s a law of our universe. It's a side effect of being a creation. Otherwise, why shouldn't anything and everything be allowed to appear on a whim? Why? Our universe was designed to not allow such a thing, yet it cannot exist without it.

Posted by Marionumber1
Those people that group abiogenesis and evolution together are wrong. The initial creation of life and what life does after its creation are totally independent. Evolution only relies on life existing in some way, not how it came to be. The point is that evolution is a compelling explanation for how life got to where it is today, without the need for an intelligent creator to be designing it.

If you disagree about abiogenesis, then discuss that. But stop tying it to evolution.


Perhaps using the general term was wrong. Not that they're grouped together, but you often hear "I don't believe in God because of evolution", which doesn't make a lot of sense, and is "backed up" by abiogenesis and the creation of objects without an intent, purpose, or creator. From the getgo I never dismissed literal evolution - just the whole "flow" and reasoning for its use as an argument against creation.

The term "evolution" should then be disassociated with this subject of creation - it has no function here. Don't you agree?

Posted by Marionumber1
My reason mentioning inconsistencies in the Bible was specific to a certain religion (though many others have that similar problem). But the other two were much more general. I think there are problems with religion as a whole and specific sects of it.


Understood. Often you'll encounter people who hate Christianity or other religions to the point that they'll deny the existence of a God in and of the purpose of their hatred. That's unfounded. Glad that whatever side you're arguing is simply against intelligent design - not the religious aspects of it or its related practices.

It'a great that we can come to terms. Maybe someday one of us will see something in a different light after hearing the others opinion.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-12-16 04:29 PM (rev. 2 of 09-12-16 04:31 PM) Link | #77200
Posted by SuperMario64DS
I don't believe I said you did, but to cut a creator out leaves it at nothing presently ('Nothing' can be perceived two ways here: matter spontaneously generated out of nothing, or matter has always existed, and therefore 'no thing' is responsible for its creation)

"Nothing" is a concept in our universe - who's to say it exists "beyond"? It's logical that something outside of the realm of universe - our universe in which nothing cannot create something - can have no creator. The limitations imposed on our universe prevent such a thing from occuring from within itself, so it must be external, and, oddly, our universe allows us to grasp the concept of illogic. As it stands, the material in our universe cannot be self created, which leaves (once again) faith in the eternal god that is matter.

And, once again, our universe is not stagnant, as its law would dictate without a hand to get going. Something set it into motion.


We're entering into murky, unspecified territory whenever we talk about what existed before the universe. My personal belief is that the matter and energy to form the universe always existed, just as yours is that a creator always existed. A creator existing is not a more rational explanation.

Perhaps using the general term was wrong. Not that they're grouped together, but you often hear "I don't believe in God because of evolution", which doesn't make a lot of sense, and is "backed up" by abiogenesis and the creation of objects without an intent, purpose, or creator. From the getgo I never dismissed literal evolution - just the whole "flow" and reasoning for its use as an argument against creation.

The term "evolution" should then be disassociated with this subject of creation - it has no function here. Don't you agree?


No, since creation is the religious explanation of how we ended up with the world we know today. Since evolution is a well-established scientific theory that explains part of that, a creation belief that doesn't involve evolution is wrong.

Hiccup
Posted on 09-12-16 04:39 PM Link | #77202
I think evolution is fact, actually. Its natural selection that is a scientific theory.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-12-16 04:43 PM (rev. 2 of 09-12-16 04:44 PM) Link | #77205
Posted by Hiccup
I think evolution is fact, actually. Its natural selection that is a scientific theory.


Natural selection is a mechanism that forms part of the theory of evolution. But keep in mind that a scientific theory isn't a guess: it's a comprehensive description of the world fitting the available empirical and theoretical data. A scientific theory should be considered fact, unless valid evidence comes along to dispute it.

Furthermore, natural selection isn't some alien concept. It's how antibiotic resistance works, for example, something we face in the modern world. Some of the bacteria are killed by an antibiotic, and those that aren't multiply, leaving you with a full population of bacteria that resist the drug.

Hiccup
Posted on 09-12-16 05:15 PM Link | #77209
I wasn't meaning to discredit natural selection by calling it a scientific theory. I know that, in laymans terms, well-evidenced scientific theories such these are essentialy fact

Baby Luigi
Posted on 09-12-16 07:33 PM Link | #77226
Asking what came before the universe's existence is like asking what's north of the north pole.

Tahcryon
Posted on 09-13-16 04:07 AM Link | #77240
Posted by Baby Luigi
Asking what came before the universe's existence is like asking what's north of the north pole.

Um no, it really isn't. We can't know for sure what came before the universe's existence, which is not the same case as the North Pole thing,

____________________


[04/15/2018]gridatttack: I still think the whole smg2.5 team are still in middle school lol
[04/15/2018]gridatttack: and they are 14yrs old
__________

cosmological: There's no one in Russia who doesn't agree with Putin, probably because his ideas are that great


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Main - Serious discussion - What are your beliefs? New reply

Page rendered in 0.031 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 28, rows: 232/232, time: 0.016 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.