Originally Posted by PVPPRO
But in order for there to be anything, something has to be created. And if there isn't anything to create it, there wouldn't be anything there would there? Oracle, where did those few chemicals that created life come from? In fact, any matter at all? Too lazy to explain everything, in school anyways.
Ever thought that maybe existence of matter didn't suddenly come out of nowhere, and that it was there all along? You assume that there is nothing first, which is the first fundamental flaw of religious logic. It assumed there was nothing, so therefore something had to create something. But if matter is a constant, then the need for something to create matter is non-existent.
So to say that god created everything, you would first have to prove that there was indeed actually nothing at some point. And you would have to prove that it would be impossible otherwise for matter to have arisen from such an environment without the influence of a god. AND you would have to disprove the paradox of, if nothing existed, then a god should not exist either. AND you would then have to explain why a god would suddenly be created out of nothing before matter would (quite frankly, the nothing-to-matter jump is a lot more plausible than the nothing-to-supernatural-being-to-matter jump). Needless to say, your work is cut out for you.
You can't start an argument for religion and then use religion to prove your religion is right. That's circular logic at its worst. You have to be able to prove that your religion can be validated outside of it's own existence. Simply put, you can't say religion is right because religion says it's right.
And @JayStar abnormality does not mean it is wrong. Albinos are abnormal because they don't produce any melanin. However, nobody in their right mind goes around saying albinos are sins against god or illogical. Likewise, homosexuality is just a different reaction in the brain to different stimuli. In this case, it causes a pleasurable or arousing reaction to stimuli from people of the same gender. In fact, this type of reaction is visible even in heterosexuals, albeit on a smaller scale. It results in camaraderie, and it's an important reaction for humans to have, otherwise we would have been wiped out because of our impotence outside of a group.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Poop
Genius. Stop being so smart everywhere.
Originally Posted by Oracle
So to say that god created everything, you would first have to prove that there was indeed actually nothing at some point. And you would have to prove that it would be impossible otherwise for matter to have arisen from such an environment without the influence of a god. AND you would have to disprove the paradox of, if nothing existed, then a god should not exist either. AND you would then have to explain why a god would suddenly be created out of nothing before matter would (quite frankly, the nothing-to-matter jump is a lot more plausible than the nothing-to-supernatural-being-to-matter jump).
That's obviously assuming that God would be made of matter. Nothing anywhere in any text(including the Bibel) states that God is made of matter. Being made of nothing is implausible though, and impossible, since nothing and brings into question the fact that thought cannot simply appear. A logical being has to have thoughts. All beings as far as we are aware of are made of matter, which shows that a beings made of nothing, wouldn't be a being at all. And all animate objects with thoughts are technically considered beings.
Matter appearing out of nothing is theoretically possible. If you look into anti-matter, an annihilation could theoretically create matter from nothing. We all know the Big Bang was the expansion of the universe which was caused by a massive explosion. The mass-energy equivalence is equal to the energy produced by anti-matter/matter contact(annihilation). Since mass is frozen energy, the vacuum of emptiness we could assume was the state before the universe existed would be infinitely cold, possibly cold enough to freeze energy. That being said, anti-matter/matter annihilations could disprove the existence of God, assuming we could figure out where the anti-matter/matter came from. We could also be a giant experiment formulated by giant beings living in an even larger universe then ours, or we could be in an infinite loophole of multiverses within which each one causes another universe to be created, continuing the cycle. We don't know, and we probably never will.
Refer to above two paragraphs for more detail.
Everything comes from somewhere, so things coming from nothing is highly improbable. For something to be created by something else, that thing needs thought, which is impossible if nothing exists.
Read above thingy again. Pretty much that same argument all over again.
Matter is generally required for life, so beings appearing without thought or matter is scientifically impossible.
Yay Science.
Originally Posted by Sacrafan
I find your way of debating rather annoying, quoting and commenting on every single line rather than writing your own argumentation so I won't engage in a deeper discussion.
Just posting to point out that you basically speak against your own initial statement that religion has literally almost nothing to do with it. ^_^
When it's dressed up as one, as you say, it obviously does play a big role.
Denying that would be like desputing that religion played a big role in the crusades, even if they were just territorial interests dressed up in religous ones.
The motives of the masses are just as relevant as of those in charge.
I'd never dispute myself that there aren't other factors. Religion is a big one, not the only one.
It's disappointing to me that you won't engage in deeper discussion because of superficial formatting.
However, religion played a much deeper role in the Crusades due to the nature of the Holy Roman Empire and the idea of Jerusalem as a holy site for both Islam and Christianity. In the Pakistan-India conflict, the central issue is ethnic and geographical, not religious.
Originally Posted by JayStar
Your own response is comical in an arrogant, age-elitist, sort of way.
You're just assuming things without being able to back them up. There is an existing argument about whether or not people even went to heaven before Jesus' death. Because, like you said, the bible constantly contradicts itself.
I just find it funny that you're taking the time to insult a being that you don't believe exists. It's just self-indulgent and childish.
Originally Posted by jayStar
Would it even matter? By God's law, murder is still the ultimate attack against his image. If I were to shoot up a mall full of innocent people but they were welcomed into heaven, should my act be forgiven?
If your response is to say that God is exempt from his own law, then you and I both know that there is no fairness or compassion in God.
God is the ultimate adjudicator in Christianity. Of course exceptions to the law apply to him. Otherwise those who administer the death penalty would be tried for murder.
Originally Posted by JayStar
On a related note, what kind of God kills off the entire world populace (Noah's flood) and then comes to the conclusion that perhaps it wasn't the best thing to do? Wouldn't an "all-knowing" God consider the consequences?
The common interpretation is that God is everywhere and knows of all occurring in the present, not that he knows the future.
Originally Posted by JayStar
I appologize if I come off as "angst-filled" but this is a subject I've pondered and questioned much of my life. Mind you, a short life, but I find it better to question what I've been taught rather than to live in blind ignorance.
If you had pondered it for so much of your life, perhaps you would have a slightly more nuanced view than "God is a douchebag and religious practitioners are ignorant."
Originally Posted by JayStar
Of course, but in the species that exhibit such behavior it is a rarity. The "relationships" that result are not long lasting. Perhaps "unnatural" is the incorrect term for homosexuality does occur in nature but observed as a rarity.
It's actually not that rare.
Originally Posted by JayStar
Obviously we know that in the animals that have been know to exhibit homosexual tendencies, without male-female sex, that species would not exist. Therefor, it should be fair to say that homosexuality is unproductive and somewhat illogical.
Indeed, then it would be "logical" to conclude that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, since most animals do not make conscious choices. As such, judging them for this, or putting some insidious label of "unnatural" on them would be both unfair and "illogical."
Originally Posted by JayStar
This would all be subjective, as well as my own opinion in Penn. So I really don't see a point in debating it. We'd get just as far debating which kind of Doritos taste better.
But, I feel like you're just generalizing Penn's reactions to religion. True, in many cases, he can very "to the point" and condescending. But, in other cases, he is sincere and understanding. You have to remember, Penn is a public figure and alot of the times, what he says or does is to attract attention. So, any of those video's from his Bullshit T.V. show, are going to biased and condescending.
-----
So you agree with me that he paints a poor face for public discourse between atheists and religious practitioners.
Originally Posted by JayStar
Like I've said before, our bassic understanding of physics doesn't apply before the big bang. Therefor, Newton's 3rd law of motion doesn't apply. The law states: "For any action, there is an equal but opposite reaction". In laymen terms, for any cause, there must have been an effect.
Actually your interpretation of the third law is far more applicable to Newton's first law, "an object at rest stays at rest..."
Originally Posted by JayStar
So it would be fair to say for any exsistance of matter, it must have been created. However, time and space did not exist before the big bang, so we can't existing laws and theories to try to explain it. For all we know, there was no cause. It may have always been. There may have been only an effect with no cause. Meaning, no God or creator.
However, this topic has very little to do with classical physics. This is the simple idea that we don't know how our universe came to be, if it existed for eternity, WHY it exists in the first place, HOW it exists, WHY these arbitrary physical laws exist, WHY they explain the universe perfectly, and so on and so forth.
When attempting to take a look at these very difficult and meaningful questions, attempting to describe them using newton's laws on bodies and force seem a bit...simplistic, really.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
"Why can't we all live together in a big world as Atheists, Islams, Christian, or why gods at all?"
religions are just another way to control people, such as racial inequality ideologies, probably, stereotypes. it's a pretty successful brain-washing technology.
imagine a brainless muslim reading koran: "other religions suck! christians are bastards!". now imagine him living with a christian who laughs every time he hears "allah akbar" because he imagines a funny cartoon muslim with a bomb exploding himself... that's not gonna work. i guess, because people are shit.
religions are just another way to control people, such as racial inequality ideologies, probably, stereotypes. it's a pretty successful brain-washing technology.
imagine a brainless muslim reading koran: "other religions suck! christians are bastards!". now imagine him living with a christian who laughs every time he hears "allah akbar" because he imagines a funny cartoon muslim with a bomb exploding himself... that's not gonna work. i guess, because people are shit.
