Yet you seem to think the Big Bang explains everything.

Pfft, you're as much of a joke as kill3r. Out of my intellectual depth? You can't even spell 'concepts' mate. That's all you know how to do is insult people, you can't come up with any intelligent arguments at all just like kill3r, it's unbelievably pathetic.

This thread is a waste of my time, i'll let you guys get back to the usual boring old religion bashing since that's all you know how to do.

Think about this; how can everything NATURAL spontaneously arise from NON-NATURAL, ie. nothing? It would have to have had the involvement of something supernatural, logically.

And what is the plausability of something like that happening completely by chance?

something to ponder.

so it does turn out that you have nothing, who would have thought

I'm a bit sick of explaining certain things over and over again, so just forget it.

"i dont know" is an honest response - but that doesn't lead on to therefore god

Maybe not scientifically, but it could.. if you are motivated to seek a deeper meaning to existence through philosophical and other means, rather than solely scientific means. And evidently it has for many people.

If you are seeking God through scientific means, I don't think you will ever what you are looking for. If you seek God outside the restraints of science however, you just may find enlightenment. If you don't want to believe in God though, or a an ultimate creator of the universe, and you form your beliefs to suit that, then it doesn't really matter and I don't know why you would bother debating it in the first place.

I guess the point i'm trying to make is, you shouldn't do yourself the injustice of limiting yourself soley to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, when there are so many other sources of limitless knowledge available to us, including your own advanced, thinking, contemplating mind.

lol.. pathetic.

Your entire belief is in the Big Bang, but you don't even care to think what came before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, or why? :sly:

Like I said, if you restrict yourself only to the limited contraints of science, you're never going to discover anything deeper than how certain things in the universe work. And that is, I think, a sad thing.

Anyway, i'm done with this thread I think, back to GP forums for me. Might drop in every now and then if any actual interesting discussion comes up (I won't hold my breath though)

this was the article i was trying to comment on. i said " the reason atheist do not debate with religous types is because it gives them creability". i also wrote it totally un argumentative but alas i didnt get accepted

We are back to religion bashing already? How boring.... is that all you people know how to do?

this was the article i was trying to comment on. i said " the reason atheist do not debate with religous types is because it gives them creability". i also wrote it totally un argumentative but alas i didnt get accepted

Wtf... if you don't want to debate why the hell are you even commenting on their website in the first place, have you not got anything better to do? They probably didn't accept it because you didn't even make any kind of argument, you just said "I don't want to argue with religious people, because i'm a huge failure and I don't know how."  Congratulations.

probably a Destiny Church-funded website or something, but they are right about Charles Dawkins book being an absolute load of shit, I've started reading bits of it and good lord that guy talks a load of bollocks, not to mention the majority of his arguments have been thoroughly picked apart by various people.

Also I found this video quite interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=ben+stein+interview&total=37&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I don't agree with everything they say, but they bring up some good points. If the universe is 'chaotic' and random, then the universe would not be intelligible, it would not be ordered in any kind of way and we would have no way of understanding anything. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that the universe is completely chaotic.

Without the physical laws and constants that govern the universe, we would not exist. If any one of those well-defined laws had been even 1% different from their current values, we would not exist. Planets would not exist, starts would not exist. Where did those laws come from, and how can something that clearly and specificly defined have randomly come from nothing? The only reasonable explanation atheists can come up with for this is that we live in one of a millions of infinite universes in a huge multiverse, and we just happen to be in the one that got everything right. Sounds like a cop out to me, but those crazy atheists gotta justify their belief somehow I guess.

For an atheist to say it's CHANCE for something to have come from nothing, is again, a complete cop out - it explains nothing and leaves you with more questions than you have answers. As one of the guys in the video says, the word "chance" is a word which correlates to ignorance, if you can't explain how something happened it's easy to just say "it's because of chance, random spontaneousness"

But really, how plausible is it that something could  randomly arise from NOTHING by completely naturalistic means? To say that the existence of everything comes down to chance, just is not logical -  no matter how far you go back you will always need a cause, and an uncaused cause.

It is said that science has nothing to say about God, and nothing to say about why or what might have caused the universe. But that's exactly it... the existence of everything isn't a scientific issue, it's a philosophical issue. That's the problem these days, we have hardheaded scientists that only accept science and reject everything else. But if you do so, you're never going to figure out anything deeper than how something works, you will never figure out why something works, because it is outside the realm of science. Einstein said "God doesn't play dice." and Newton said that he was "..doing no more than explaining how God ordered the universe." These great scientific minds had no problem incorporating philosophy into their studies, why should anyone else? Should we stop referring to anything Newton or Einstein said, simply because they dared to think outside the box, and think outside the contraints of science? Of course not. Science without the external input of philosophy is a monumental failure, atleast in terms of trying to figure out our existence.

Interesting video anyway. WATCH IT FOOLS.

One day we will find the little green martians and UFO's on Mars, eh Ngati !

The problem is, it's too much having this entire topic condensed into this one thread like this, we need seperate threads for seperate topics - it's confusing responding to multiple arguments from different people in one go, especially with the annoying forum interface.

fucking wall of text gives me a headache

stuff

Dude, it was 1000's of years ago. After being translated through 100's of different languages, over 1000's of years. Also realize that the Bible is not written by one person, it is written by many different people based on their experiences, I think it's undertandable that everything in the Bible would not be completely accurate to the very letter of the word. While there are inaccuracies, there are also many accuracies and predictions about the universe and mankind made long before we even made the discoveries

one example would be the Bible teaches that 'life is in the blood' - for a long time scientists thought that life was provided by the function of the brain, when in fact that is wrong and it has only recently been discovered that life does in fact come from the blood (I don't know the technical details, I could find a link if you want). That is just one example off the top of my head, there are many others.

Also the story of David & Goliath was in the city of Babylon wasn't it?

All that remains today of the ancient famed city of Babylon is a mound, or tell, of broken mud-brick buildings and debris in the fertile Mesopotamian plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in Iraq.

Well if that's all that is left of Babylon, then of course there is not going to be any distinquishable evidence left...


fuck, I'll respond to your post later if I can be bothered Simon, need to take a break from this thread.

But you haven't either and your defending it? O.o Thats how i see it anyway, haven't read the whole saga.

I'm not defending it. Remember though, there is a lot of historical evidence surrounding the Bible, and the recountings are from real people in our history, and since it is written by so many people all telling the same thing, I don't think it would be fair to instantly dismiss it as a bunch of crazy loons writing fictional stories for shits and giggles.

We have a very mysterious ancient history, and unless you were actually there I don't think it would be good to critisize any of it.

Also, if anything else, one of the good things about the Bible from what i've seen is that the scriptures are very good and wise teachings of character, morals, love of your fellow man, respect and appreciation of nature, ect. ect. and so forth. To be honest, if more people followed the teachings of the Bible the world would be a much happier place.

Not trying to convince you or anything, but yeah just remember it is an ancient, sacred book with a lot of deep meaning to it (both literal and non-literal) and historical evidence to support a lot of it, so it would probably be a bit more wise to respect it rather than critisize it, mainly because you have no basis with which to critisize it.

If the world is so complex, so sophisticated that it required intelligent design, then wouldn't the designer also be so complex that it requires intelligent design? and so on....

Already been explained. Many, many, many times. In fact probably on the previous page I explained it, for like the 50th time, to kill3r.

As an atheist i dont have to explain how the universe wasnt created by a superior being because i dont believe in a superior being! Theres hardly a need to prove something which hasnt been proven to begin with.

No, but you need to explain logically how everything could come from nothing by mere coincidence and work effectively instead of being completely random and chaotic.

You really have no idea wtf you're talking about, do you? >_<

crap

Welcome to ignore list. If you ever have anything decent or intelligent to contribute, let me know. I won't hold my breath.

True atheists are the least ignorant among humans because they look at all the evidence while other choose to ignore it or cast it off as "god did it" such as the simpleton known as psyche.

You gotta be kidding me. Non-atheists look at the evidence too, and many people, based on the evidence, have concluded that there is no possible, logical way that the universe and all it's unimaginably complex laws and systems could have come from nothing without being created by a supremely intelligible being or force.

There is a reason why humans have become able to understand and learn about so much the universe and how it works, and that is because the universe was created in a way that would specifically be able to be understood by our minds.

By calling me a simpleton, you are indirectly referring to some of the greatest scientific, theological and philosophical minds in our history as simpletons aswell, so GG on that one genius.

As an atheist, you need to explain your belief of exactly how everything could come from nothing without the need of an intelligent being to put it into motion and make sure all the laws of gravity, nature ect. work perfectly and harmoniously  - how humans, a complex, consciously-aware, thinking, problem-solving form of life could come to evolve from nothing.

I would like to hear your beliefs and how they fit into your understanding of the universe. I asked you this earlier in the thread and you conveniently chose to ignore it.

Thats exactly what we are doing and we are merely discussing them in this thread. But a certain individual has taken it upon himself to change all our opinions to suit his :disappoin

Wait, what are you discussing? I haven't really seen you discussing anything. Nothing coherent anyway.

Amazing Graphic Designers are irrational, illogical and rebellious.

Uuuh yeah, in the field of design. Doesn't mean you have to apply that same rationale to life outside of work :/

Just as an aside, how many of you have read the bible or any other religious texts?

I haven't, but I am going to start reading the Bible very soon, I am very interested in it and fascinated to learn about the history.

I bet kill3r hasn't, but he sees fit to critisize it anyway, because he's a gigantic noobie.

No.

You have generated a pattern through your posts. And Simon has just clarified it.

If there is something in a post that you "can't be bothered" with or just don't know how to answer, you will change the subject or just plain ignore it.

This time you quoted his whole post just to pick out a spelling mistake.

You fail.

Let's argue for the sake of arguing. It's so interesting.