I muse at how it was all happenstance that got the ball rolling.

No god plot for me, perhaps some alien intervention at times. Perhaps those aliens, if they did intervene at times were viewed as the gods.

If there were aliens, they'd have to have some serious technology advances that we literally can not even imagine at this time with the greatest human minds that have ever existed who have spent their lives studying such fields.

Because, from what knowledge of science and space and all that kind of thing that we currently possess, we know for a fact that light speed travel is not possible and that is basically what you'd need to do to go far enough to reach another planet with intelligent life on it. And even then, that light speed would not get us very far. And by not very far, I mean that, for instance:: Andromeda is the closest galaxy to ours at 2.5 MILLION LIGHT YEARS distance. Pretty sure there ain't no people or ability to even produce a vehicle that would last for that long.

Sure, we could search our own galaxy but even that is sketchy as fuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest...candidates

So, unless they know how to do some amazing wormhole shit, there is no way we've ever had aliens visit us.

Yes, I know I did not explain that very well but the point was made well enough. =)

They probably have amazing wormhole shit but I wonder why they would visit us. I suspect there's nothing special about intelligent life. Moreover, they're probably so far advanced there's nothing likely of value -- scientific or otherwise -- to gain by visiting Earth. It'd be analogous to traveling around the world to visit some very mundane thing like a glass of purified water. They can probably create complex intelligent life with ease and anything "naturally" occurring out there is probably considered quaint by their standards.

how cute, the glass of purified water is trying to communicate its ideas about the behaviors of hypothetical "advanced intelligent life".

i am pretty sure alien civilizations already are in control of all our governments or we would have imploded long time ago in atomic war. there is no way humanity on it's own could survive that long with atomic weapons and other deadly weapons.

these aliens are probably treating humanity like a kindergarten if they are good or like some ant-ridden backyard if they don't share our values. but thankfully non of them decided to do anything disastrous to us and by all account it looks like they are at least neutral and don't cause any major havoc on our planet.

it's true for any advanced civilization humanity is like ants or other insects so they probably have no interest in talking or doing anything significant with us. but there probably are aliens who are spiritually evolved and help us to bring peace on this planet. there is probably many many aliens that covertly influence our planet so we will be forever at mercy of their will.

I don't see any evidence that aliens control things. If it is as you say it is (they're protecting us from ourselves), why are they letting as much chaos occur? Why wouldn't they render all nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons useless? Why wouldn't they sneak in fusion power so that we're not wrecking out climate with fossil fuels? Why wouldn't they reveal themselves so that fanatical religious zealots would have to reevaluate their beliefs and thereby save lives? Why not cure diseases? Poverty? War?

There's immense human suffering happening now and has been throughout human history. It seems malicious that an alien civilization could be "in control" and let things go on as they have been without stepping in more.

i have no clue but i can only speculate all of this perceived stuff happens due to our limited intellect, knowledge and understanding, we have no clue how advanced civilization thinks or what their values are or what technologies they use, they might use dimensional shift equipment to make themselves invisible to us and manipulate our thoughts through higher dimensions etc etc. it's very hard to understand the motives of such advanced civilizations same for ant to understand what is a human doing to its anthill or out in backyard or what his motives are etc. it's not necessarily physical or visible reality is the only livable place and civilizations that span millions of years could have learned how to live in other dimensions and so on.

That sounds like a very confusing or mysterious way to think about things.

i read it from new age stuff long time ago, not sure if its true but it sounds like a totally sound possibility. it's more of an example of what could be and may be not 100% accurate. does fish in fish tank understands it's a pet of humans etc. it might be actually pretty hard to discern higher intelligent life that is millions of years ahead of us in evolution.

You could use that same argument -- "they're so advanced that what seems irrational to us may be very rational for their vastly superior intelligence" -- any way you want. Maybe they are protecting us? Maybe they're not? Maybe they're simultaneously doing both? Maybe they're actively trying to destroy us?

It's the same mysticism applied in religions to dance around problems of logic. If God is good, why does He permit suffering in this world? Why did He create evil or hell? The answer to that is always: Well, God works in mysterious ways...

Well it does kind of make sense that they would observe us and not interfere. We kind of do that with animals, and they could see us in the same way, if they were sufficiently advanced.

It could also be because maybe we have to overcome challenges for ourselves, even though its harsh. Not to mention the complications of involving themselves. If they give all technology, they could be responsible for our destruction, or, if they don't give any technology, but just help, they could still be viewed with suspicion. Later, in the Human future, the help might not even be appreciated, as it'll always be that we needed their help, or, that they didn't give us a chance to make it on our own.

I can see reasons for helping us too, but its just that I can also see reasons for some kind of stealthy probes that just monitor us and send back information.

You could also go to the wacky concept of them transferring our consciousness (or "soul") after we die, into a form of afterlife, where they gradually make you part of their race, which would go some way to make up for the suffering, if you had 80 years of suffering but then lived as long as you wanted in bliss, you might forgive them - and who better to make first contact, than humans who are now part of their race, who once lived on Earth. Anyway thats pretty crackpot, but its still fun to think about ;)

Jesus Christ, aliens? You are even more retarded than I expected after reading all the shit you posted to me. About a thousand times more retarded. Your credibility was 5 on a scale of 100 but now it is minus 20. You graduated from retard to a salivating lunatic.
Thanks for the laugh

hey'd have to have some serious technology advances that we literally can not even imagine at this time with the greatest human minds that have ever existed who have spent their lives studying such fields

we know for a fact that light speed travel is not possible and that is basically what you'd need to do to go far enough to reach another planet with intelligent life on it

:thinking:

God. Yes he exists and is still the backbone of our reality.

i also believe this, i think there is particular problem with some people understanding what the word god means as some entity in the universe like an immortal old man with beard rather than the one creator/source of everything including universe and laws of physics.

Yeah. It's definitely a problem. A rather large one. Biggest problem since the fall.

it's the age old puzzle. if the creator/source created everything, who or what energy created the creator....

i think the way we think about it should be that god is not a physical entity in space and time, but rather that which created space and time itself thus it itself could have never been created but always existed before and after creation of the universe.

Revelation 22:13

why is it "thus it itself could have never been created but always existed before and after creation of the universe"? why do you assume such a mundane and worldly consequent, even in the same thread you're admitting your ignorance? it's like if you were a guy who falls into traps all the time, a totally oblivious guy who is always stumbling from trap to trap, and each time you fall into a trap, you proclaim "i'm not going to fall into a trap again!" and then you fall into another trap.

you're locked into a conception of "god". it's a meaningless word that is an insult to the glory of what exists so far beyond your comprehension. say the word "god" and then run along meekly, don't say the word "god" and then try to, arrogantly, redefine it with your vulgar and base capacity for definition. really.

i don't really get what's the reason you use personal critics instead of discussing the idea of gods existence which to me doesn't really have any relation to topic that i am trying to discuss. you are trying to say that only a holy person is capable to understand what god is? my conception is that god is the source of everything that is so anyone including a crazy person in the looney bin can experience what god is from their own personal experience.

as i say god is a broad term and has been overused to a point where people equate the word god with some physical object in the universe that requires worship or that god somehow is always a judge that rewards only good people etc.

i can use any other word like for example the "source of eveyrthing or all that is and isn't". it's only a conceptual idea that is based on my personal experience. if god is truly there there is no way to describe it as it so great as to create space-time continuum so any description that you can make of it isn't going to give that much information about what god actually is.

i didn't use personal critics instead of discussing the idea of "god's existence" (whatever that means). i was very plain with what i said, but you've chosen to ignore what i said and to invent some alternate ideas of what i said and focus on those imaginary ideas. i haven't said only a holy person is capable to understand what god is. i am saying that you say: god is not this, god is this. you are vulgarly confining "god" to a worldly definition. it's offensive.

you argue about "god" in this thread with the vain goal of demonstrating your wisdom, when the irony is that you're a fool among fools and the other fools are only fascinated by the novelty of your motley.

if god is all that is than i think any description of god is only approximation of truth and arguing over what god is like arguing what color is more pretty. everyone has their opinion, i don't use personal critics when i talk about people's idea of god and using personal critics in general i think has no relation to this topic. you either have some conception of god that is different from mine or you base your opinion on personal preference when someone speaks, i could care less who speaks the truth it could be a homeless person on the street or a preacher at the church i don't discern qualities of people when i consider their statements. if you are arguing over ideas of god than as i say i don't believe god really cares when he is worshiped as he is all that is so no matter what happens in the universe is still part of god no matter what. if you confine god to some deity than it's pretty plausible that there is some christian deity that requires worship and adoration etc and i don't think that kind of interpretation of god is the ultimate truth. if god was good or evil than only good or evil things would happen, that's why i don't think that god really cares ultimately what people say or think about it. only a limited portion of what you call god requires adoration like a picture on the wall and that god i believe is pure fantasy of human thinking. true god would never care again what people think of him or weather they are talking about him without fear etc. god is source of all that is and that's the only thing i can say from my experience.

if god is all that is

that's a pretty big condition for a premise. i haven't used any "personal critics". i haven't expressed an opinion of what "god" is, nor am i going to, because i'm not of a habit to define things outside the framework of my conception.

if you are arguing over ideas of god than as i say i don't believe god really cares when he is worshiped as he is all that is so no matter what happens in the universe is still part of god no matter what

i have been plain in my statements. i am not arguing over anything. i was pointing out the irony of you criticizing others for defining god in a limited worldly fashion, and then you turn around and define god in a limited worldly fashion. you don't see this irony because you are so deluded by your own "brilliance". you even say the following:

only a limited portion of what you call god requires adoration

i haven't called "god" anything. why are you saying "what you call god" in regards to me? it's because you have become intoxicated by your own novelty. you have a vain fixation on this idea of "god" that you hold. you confidently believe that your idea is somehow more true than any others (even though your idea is unfalsifiable), and because you don't see that idea represented as common knowledge you believe that it's rare or unique. the combination of the confidence of its verity and its rareness allows you to assume that i hold some other common (and, to your thinking, "wrong") position about "god", and so you project that position onto me without even bothering to ask for more information.

your behavior is a front, a facade. this entire thread acts as a guard positioned outside the treasure of your ignorance, which resides in a chest for safekeeping. as long as you behave this way, that ignorance will remain uncontested in your heart.

again you use personal attacks and trying to nitpick at all the possible ways that i am wrong. my idea is a good as anyone including preachers at the church, some people believe that worshiping an idol is absurd idea etc. does god really care what i think? probably no and any conception that god wants people to think certain way is also probably a fantasy of human thought. not all saints go to heaven and not all sinners go to hell, we are not even sure what happens after death. if you don't state your own ideas about god than i believe you are simply an atheist or a cultist of some sort or else you would be talking more about the idea of god rather than trying to use personal attacks. again your ideas that you present don't tell me anything about what you believe in and more what you dislike or think, it's your opinion. if you think i am wrong then show me the way or else it's just pointless personal attacks. not a single truly knowable person uses personal attacks when he tries to preach to his people, only a cultist or atheists start nitpicking statements and use personal attacks and generalizations to put people down.

i haven't used any personal attacks, and i am not trying to nitpick at all the possible ways that you are wrong. i haven't said anything about whether or not your idea is as good as anyone including preachers at the church. i'm not going to state my own ideas about "god". if you choose to assume that i'm an "atheist" or a "cultist of some sort", then that is to your own detriment. i haven't attacked you personally, and i haven't stated anything about my likes or dislikes. if you get some idea about my likes or dislikes from my post, then it's a fabrication of your own mind. i haven't said whether you're wrong or right, and i haven't made any pointless personal attacks. i haven't nitpicked your statements.

your ego is occluding your vision, buddy. you're upset for being exposed in your vain attempt to garner attention. it's okay. that's part of the process.

retard you can exchange gud to the universe. it always existed but one day it ate beans, farted really big and that was the big bang. This theory has the same value as any of yours you sad son of a single mother.

fuck you all : op, and comment 1 through 4

stupid bastards

ps: op should suck that elephants dick to be sure it is there

i think just pondering the question if there is god doesn't actually make a person "stupid", it's actually the opposite that makes me question the persons intellect. how many times science was wrong? new theories appear that disprove previous research. quantum theory states that the very act of observation changes the outcomes of an experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

fuck you, retard

dont talk to me ever again

care to explain your reasoning? i am not actually part of any religion so i would be willing to hear your arguments.

you are too low level to explain it considering the wiki links you posted.
stop using your head until you have read enough. Even after that it seems best to just cease your efforts.
For example,
it is not quantum theory states that, but the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Thats just not the same thing you know. No you dont. Now you do.

i understand that i might make some mistakes like interpretation of an experiment, but science as is, is limited to scientific method. how does science for example explain the existence of thoughts which it cannot currently read? i am simply questioning the limits of scientific method to explain everything including things that it can't scientifically evaluate.

you similarly misinterpret scientific evaluation or thinking and that also leads to stupid town.
If something cant be scientifically evaluated, it is a belief system, however sound you think the logic is behind it.
You observe a world around you and think about it thats almost half of the scientific method.
Science weaponized thinking and manipulating the world from subatomic particles to space rockets and everything in between. It is the most successful method to interact with the reality around us.
All your meta physical brethren just piss the sheets at night but came up nothing even close as useful out of your armchair philosophy. For thousands of years, the track record is pretty clear. The best thing is while you talk shit about science, you link wikipedia articles about it thinking thats supports your anti science agenda but it just illustrated that you cant even understand what you read.

i think i understand what science means, science means physical world exists and it explains how it works. but science never explains the origins of physical world or reality. same way people have personal experiences that science can't prove. i am not discrediting science as a tool to understand physical world, i am discrediting science as ideology to explain everything that exists. there is nothing wrong with science when it comes in the form of inventing new medicine etc. there is many things wrong with science when it becomes an ideology and a way of life for many people like it was in the days of hitler and lenin, i don't think any of us would wan't to live in a world of aggressive atheism that hitler and lenin tried to build. science as ideology discredits itself time and time again as it lacks understanding of universe as a whole rather than some explainable set of laws.

but science never explains the origins of physical world or reality

it does but you just dont get what the difference between belief and knowledge you poor bastard.

for example you dont know that I'm typing this with my dick or with my fingers. You can have your theories, but it just dosent matter because you cant prove it. You see? Will this uncertainty haunt you the same esoteric way like the "origin" of the universe?
Science is not an ideology, you think in ideologies and thats why you ask these questions from yourself and came to the wrong conclusions. You brain is not built for it. Your kind does the same tired acts, all over the internet. You dont get that sicence is not a feeling not an ideology not a cozy explanation. You want an explanation because you are a fundamentally feeble psychologically damaged human being that suffers. science dosent answer the wrong questions. I suggest a cheap psychologist because thats what you ultimately need.

i think you make way too many assumptions when you believe what i think or feel. your explanation behind my reasoning isn't based on science but what you think or believe what i feel. equating science with truth is the same as calling a glass half empty, it can be half empty or half full, it depends on persons perspective. i don't rely on science to explain everything that is because i know it can't and blind belief in science is the same as blind belief that any physical object holds any more truth about reality than your personal belief. science can only explain the physical world and objects in it. it can never explain anything beyond physical object and i think it's a blind belief that something that doesn't fit within scientific explanation doesn't exist.

bla bla blabla bla bla.
blabllabababla blalbalba, balablabla. balalbalabla blabla la.

blabla.

you still dont get it that you fundamentally dont understand it. It makes no difference even if you tried.

IT DOSENT MATTER if it can't explain silly shit that only exists in your imagination.

Wrap your fucking mind around that.

when you don't have any arguments you start making personal insults, is that scientific explanation that somehow disproves my point of view?

it can never explain anything beyond physical object

you try to be more and more absurd right? There are scientific theories about gravity time subatomic forces and the likes, stuff you dont see cant touch and now we can even measure. With mathematics, science predicted subatomic particles and even if you think until the end of times , all of you esoteric morons, will never catch up to that.
"i think it's a blind belief that something that doesn't fit within scientific explanation doesn't exist."
wait a minute so you think about stuff that in your imagination cant be explained by science?
Why should I care about your imagination? You just regurgitate the same argument, science cant explain x, therefore god. What was before god? What is the ultimate origin of the ultimate origin? You see we can play this game forever, it is good for nothing. Your opening question in itself is a logical fallacy.

i don't discredit science completely, i simply say that scientific method is a tool that has limited use, it's not an explanation of everything in existence and no matter how hard you try you can't use a hammer to understand the properties of air. if god takes place in a non-physical reality there is no tool on earth or anywhere in the universe to measure the properties of non-physical reality. i don't discredit the use of science in some ways to improve human life, but science as ideology will lead to hell on earth as no science can explain personal experience, thus any personal experience will be stumped upon until people will turn to dust in the gas chambers if things like scientific ideology will be let out to rule human minds again. science gave rise to completely anti-human ideology like scientific racism etc. if you want to live in such world it's your choice and you are free to live in it, but many if not most people on planet earth would choose to live a life that is free from scientific atheism.

if god takes place in a non-physical reality there is no tool on earth or anywhere in the universe to measure the properties of non-physical reality.

exactly why we dont give a shit about god.
if it exist in the physical reality it means it can be seen touched or measured.
if not, we cant know.
The thing is , you can imagine stuff , like a never ending toilet paper roll or three supermodels on your dick, but that doesnt make those real.
There is imagination world and there is the reality. one we can manipulate, the other exist in peoples head.
You are really disturbed if you associate science with gas chambers, let me a bit enlighten you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population.[6] In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century.[7] It took 200 years for the world population to recover to its previous level.[8][9] The plague recurred as outbreaks in Europe until the 19th century.

How many of your relatives died in the plague ?

Nobody?

Oh thats interesting!

Nazism is an ideology that used weapons which are from engineering. Im patiently awaiting when you will talk about how we should not use irrigation for farmland because the same process can build weapons.

You still cant understand that science is not an ideology because your fucking brain cant let you.

Thats why I dont even get into the remaining of your post, it is a bunch of misunderstood bullshit of the same kind and you even invented new stuff like scientific racism, kudos for that. Don't you stop sometimes to marvel at your own stupidity? Science is a method, not an ideology, racism is an ideology.

You contradict yourself in a paragraph, first you talk about its limited use then you associate it with death and suffering. Good job :D

Science is bad because gas chambers. End of story !

Hitler did use science to explain his theories about superhuman etc, it wasn't his invention. science actually did believe and openly practiced racism before the end of ww2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

i think any scientist that actually is worth his work either says that belief or non-belief in god is his own opinion or that belief in god is outside the scope of science because he actually understands what scientific method is.

what you are trying to say is that science is free from ideology and is based only on fact and what i say is that science also is ideology or belief in scientific method and always rejects anything that doesn't fit its dogma.

scientific racism was part of science until the end of ww2 and there are many other scientific ideas supported by proof that changed over time because science is not set in stone on top of having only limited understanding of reality as it might actually be.

science is ideology because you use it in context to defend your ideas that god doesn't exist or that he is part of my imagination the same way i can say that science is also an idea in your head because you believe in scientific method as the ultimate depiction of all that is and isn't.

scientific method doesn't really prove anything to me as it's simply a set of rules that are used to get the same results to prove a hypothesis, it in itself doesn't contain any truth, it's a set of laws, it's like referring to the color of stones to prove god doesn't exist.

You still cant comprehend that science is a methodology and not an ideology?
The fucking first sentence of that wikipedia article you linked asserts that the concept is pseudoscience.
How dumb can you be? Why do you link sources that light up that you cant even read and you misunderstand the basic concepts?
How many times you want to get into your incoherent moronic 5th grade assumptions about it, when I told you straight up at the beginning you cant understand that it isnt an ideology? Do you think your fucking drivel any special? You say exactly the same thing as other morons of your kind. Science is bad because of hitler , congrats for the learned line of thought, how genius, then you link a shit wikipedia article that does nothing just shows again you dont know what you are talking about for the 100th time.

if you had any sound arguments you would refrain from personal insults, this again is just your opinion, i don't rely on someones opinion when i choose to believe something. if science can prove me god doesn't exist by showing it to me through my personal first-hand experience than i am willing to believe it, else it's the same drivel to me of a monkey that tries to understand what a human brain thinks. if science doesn't know how to understand non-physical reality than i think its pretty clear that it simply isn't capable to do so, not because non-physical reality doesn't exist according to science. again you can bring any of your pseudoscience conclusions that you call science it means nothing to me as my personal experience disproves it. you might have different personal experience and think that science can explain everything including the things that are non-physical including origin of thought etc. it doesn't require to be genius to understand what god is unless you blindly persist in clinging to your science stuff. have you considered that there is a possibility that science is the same thing that Romans believed before Christianity destroyed their pseudo-religious anti-human beliefs, i don't think your beliefs are that different from theirs because you speak of human grandeur that can explain the entire world, how can a small feeble human brain even grasp what universe is, science is just a set of approximations that predict some phenomenon in the universe, there is no one unified scientific theory that explains everything because the whole of science is based on assumptions and beliefs in proving particular cases of phenomenon in the world, not universe as a whole, science simply can't explain what god is because it has very limited capability.

if you had any sound arguments you would refrain from personal insults,

This is just factually wrong as I had arguments. For example I repeatedly demonstrated that you misunderstood your own links, ie your arguments rooted in stupidity. A healthy fuck you at the end just serves you right, thats my opinion feel free to debate it.

i don't rely on someones opinion when i choose to believe something.

How individual, you mean a personal belief is personal? What an original idea I have never heard of.

if science can prove me god doesn't exist

Science cant do that , you moronic shithead.

if science doesn't know how to understand non-physical reality than i think its pretty clear that it simply isn't capable to do so, not because non-physical reality doesn't exist according to science.

Science doesnt dwell on imaginary stuff, the same way I dont take seriously your retard good for nothing arguments which boil down to logical fallacies. You can imgaine any way how non physical reality exists, but it is just a silly idea in a silly head that has nothing to do with reality.

again you can bring any of your pseudoscience conclusions that you call science it means nothing to me as my personal experience disproves it

so because your personal experience disproves it, then thats that.
Im very happy we established that you are running a belief system, regardless of the facts -which you cant comprehend. Can you tell me how you experience atoms for example or are you similarly skeptical about them?
You see how utterly ridiculous you are?
Btw, remember when you linked about a pseudo scientific expression and you thought it is real science?
And you still dare to use pseudoscience as an argument? :D



have you considered that there is a possibility that science is the same thing that Romans believed before Christianity destroyed their pseudo-religious anti-human beliefs, i don't think your beliefs are that different from theirs because you speak of human grandeur that can explain the entire world, how can a small feeble human brain even grasp what universe is

you brain obviously can't. No I haven't because I'm not a retard like you. You throw together a nice pile of shit here, with romans, Nazism, racism, quantum theory, elephants. Shows how coherent you are with your deep thinking which is ultimately a hodge podge belief system with no practical consequences.
You dont have to think about my beliefs because the track record of science speaks for itself : it works despite you believe otherwise.

science simply can't explain what god is because it has very limited capability.

the only thing that is limited is your ability to construct a coherent argument without logical fallacies.

What you cant experience, what lives in your head, be that you think you know what happened before the big bang, or you think you are a reincarnation of napoleon, or any other crazy shit that has zero relevance as it is a personal belief, science handles it with ease : it just doesn't give a fuck. Literally doesnt matter what you think or what do you believe in. It is a feeling, nothing else. I told you that you are not built for it.

Btw, fuck you again. also a feeling for you to experience personally.

something tells me you are a teenager without much life experience. it's easy to be a fanatical devotee to some idea when you have little life experience, from my own experience many if not all fool proof ideas are destroyed or discredited through life experience. some day people believed the earth was flat etc etc, nothing tells me that science is also not on the collision course with god. science will either destroy humanity or will make everyone a zombie with a wifi microchip in their head, that is from my own experience where scientific research supported by corporate technological interest is going. corporations would love to make the entire human population their slave through technology microchips etc and non of this is disproved by science since science believes we are just some bio-robots that can be manipulated any way they want. science lacks basic understanding on human dignity or soul, it has no use for such things. people are not their skin or form of their skull etc, and yet science supports all these ideas that some external form is a more valid representation of truth than underlying sources and origins of existence of such things. it's a holistic approach to treat the cause of the problem rather than cure symptoms which science does for the most part. you can build thousands of airplanes create best medicine but people will never change and will use any of these things to destroy other humans, for every single thing that science has created for humanity there are dozens others where science helps destroy humanity in all of its aspects.

We're already at that point. Between smart devices, social media, and mainstream news, corporations are already imposing their will on the population. And they have been for a while now, they're just getting more efficient at it.

shoot that something that it told you I'm a teen, it must be moron like you.
Call me when big theories get destroyed, for example: theory of evolution, nuclear physics, gravity, astrophysics I skip the rest. Some day it was believed the earth was flat, you morons cant understand that after we sent man into space, we are not on the level of Neanderthals anymore. You think knowledge will turn on its head but that isn't so for hundreds of years: we have instruments that wasn't available, we have computers, we have mathematical models which did not exist and they are a billion times more effective than anything we could get our hands on for thousands of years, and still mathematical models hold on, more so: they get a new strength. You pricks deny any progress because thats on your agenda: you dont get it so it must be of no value. Science doesn't lack understanding of anything you can think of, you lack understanding of it because you think in ideologies and feelings and think thats reality. You talk a bunch of fucking worthless nonsense, the same empty lines like the other morons of your kind:flat earthers, astrology nuts , alternative medicine retards etc there are a million faggots there, just like you.

can you imagine people like you inhabiting the entire planet? how long do you think humanity will last with such people like you at the top? i can only count days before someone like Hitler will start a war. even if you say you aren't 15 years old you sure have intellect of one. i don't completely agree with religious beliefs but religious wars account for only about 7 percent of all wars in history and that estimate might be inflated so there is nothing like science that drives eventual destruction of humanity any of the things you mentioned can be put to use against humanity including medicine that is used for material gain, i have yet to see a single honest doctor in my life who was actually interested in curing the diseases rather treating symptoms or oven worse make things worse by using wrong medicine which is actually the most common thing they do. all bad comes from the heart of people, not due to some external events like lack of machinery etc. even if science invented ai that has super intelligence what makes you think it won't be used against humanity? there is zero evidence to support that science does only good things, it's a method to amplify knowledge but not wisdom or deep understanding. even knowledgeable person can do terrible things.

Hitler was nothing to do with science and people started war before him- You are so fucking stupid it is bordering on unbelievable :D :D
so we are treating symptomes right?

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-profes.../mortality

could you be more wrong and misguided? :D :D :D

You get your information from tv and speaking to other stupid morons and thats why you have this idiotic worldview. But dre is here to help you out with pain. Punishing your stupid shit all the way.

Factually wrong again.

from my experience doctors cure those that have lots of money and those that don't have money are left on the street to die. existence of certain medicine does not guarantee that your are going to be cured as there are doctors that lack proficiency or are compassionate enough or any of these things, again i never had any completely positive experience with any doctor, i have been unnecessarily treated with antibiotics for a simple cold flu that probably would have gone by itself since i was a kid and developed probably uncurable illness that might be lethal. science is always limited by its current understanding of reality, what science thinks 100 years in future can be opposite of what it thinks now because it is not unchangeable universal truth. thus any blind belief in science is like belief in any idea be it communism or nazism or any other limited belief. science does not guarantee that these people will be cured, it only gives tools that might do that and it's always up to the people to use them so it's still a question of moral values how medicine decides who they let live and those who die on the streets.

I hate doctors, they are fucking pricks.
I know you are a bit dim but hear me out. A hundred years for now, the color blue will still be blue.
The knowledge of blue is complete. There will be no surprises, nobody will say heureka, the color blue is red.
What you base your fucking idiotic worldview is the past. The same way 100 yard dash wont go down from 10 sec to one second, because physics will not allow that, however new exercises we invent in the future.
We cant explore new continents because there isnt any. Knowledge is not unlimited.
What your fucking stupid head cant get, that science isnt turning on itself.
Back then, when we had zero instruments, people thought a lot of bullcrap, like you.
The start of modern science, Gallileo / Newton still stands, because they made experiments that hold up today and will : forever.
Einstein did not refuted Newton, he refined it. You fuckers because you read cheap newspapers bad books and listen to morons, don't get this. In the fifties they thought we will have a moonbase in 2k. We have smartphones instead, social networks, where your fucking kind spreads ignorance. Things arent speeding up, they slow down.

again if you were a scientist the caliber of Steven hawking i would be ready to listen to your ideas, but as of now what you demonstrate is lack of any logic and you keep using generalizations and calling blue blue doesn't really make any sense as analogy to me as science is not making up names for colors and it's pretty plausible that the names of colors will change to hex names in future when human intellect amplified by computer implants will be able to handle longer names. but that in itself doesn't mean anything as life could be hell for those people just like life was hell in nazi germany even though nazi germany was much more technologically advanced then 17th century europe, it means very little to me as hell could be as technologically advanced as you could imagine, have you played quake 4? that's what future could be like and i have no doubt that it's completely possible future for humanity were human body is going to be fused with machine and the result would be not pretty at all. if you weren't that uneducated you would know that language is largely an invention of the Church and that early advances in science were all made by the church and church is not some place were people just twiddle their thumbs and come up with absurd ideas explaining how the world works.

"again if you were a scientist the caliber of Steven hawking..."

Thank you that you would listen to me if I were Steven Hawking but I don't know who that is.
If you mean Stephen Hawking the theoretical physicist best known for his work on black holes, I have 2 observations right off the bat.

First you again expose that you dont know your shit, not even a name, and while you were caught factually wrong multiple times your face should burn already when you try to assert that I generalize while all the examples are here that you even generalize a fucking name. if you were a honest person, and not a country side idiot you'd shut up, it you were intelligent, you would also shut up after that many mistakes. But you are a low level moron, just like I said. And every time you open your stupid mouth I rip a new asshole on you.

Secondly, when you started this topic on a gaming forum, only you could be this dumb btw, you honestly thought that if you draw a line and only gracefully allow Cambridge professors to change your "thinking" then you are again, just fucking dumb. There is no need for a Cambridge professor here, when you cant even link or mention something that supports any other fact that you cant understand what you read and you are a complete retard.
I bet if I had skipped high school but I would like your 6th grade level theories, that would be A-ok though.
Steven my ass . You poor illiterate fool :/

are we talking about me or are we talking about how science can prove god doesn't exist i am really lost here. i don't really care whatever stuff you type here as it's as good as listening to some crazy person on the street blabbering that they see demons.

i don't care about your personal traits as they are as good to me as knowing what color is an orange to understand what god is, totally unrelated, same way anyone can be infinitely shallow while looking like they know a lot and be very wise and not have a degree in physics.

there is again no point in attacking me personally you just show your own backwardness when you do that as i am not some primitive thinking neanderthal and do get ideas that have simple explanation if they are completely sound and logical.

as far as existence of god goes there are many scientists that do believe in god and their faith is completely unrelated to how good they are as a scientist. science can't question the existence of god same way it can question existence of a second moon around earth as belief in god deals with things that are outside scientific method.

are you going to get it on the 667th time that god and science go in parallel and believing in god doesn't disprove science and believing in science doesn't disprove god.

you still dont understand a simple formula about yourself

here is a relevant link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out

i think you just don't have any arguments, end of story.

a. do you understand what scientific method is and how it works?

b. do you understand what monotheistic definition of god is?

please explain how are you going to use a to prove b does or doesn't exist.

conclusion: you are ideologically scientific atheist who uses science as ideology to support his worldview.

I did have arguments manly about you.

1. yes, you dont though
2. yes, but i dont care about god

I told you already science cant prove anything about god you gigantic moron.
Neither can you.
The beauty of this, because you dont know shit, you hang up on, like all religious bullshitters, that "science cant prove x" therefore.... I already explained why that doesn't mean anything. But you are one google search away anyways to see how your very original argument can lead.

Conclusion: you dont know shit about proof theory, and you imagine that makes you automatically superior, but instead you are just a glaringly ignorant fool. Your thinking is sloppy and you have factual holes in your knowledge but that doesn't bother you because it all lives in your stupid head anyways.

so you see, you switch the topic to discuss other things, if you did have a real argument you would stick to the topic. you are the one who is shallow, not me. if you had a real argument related to the theory of god you would present it, now you are just trying to find every excuse to derail discussion into talking about my personality. my personality has nothing to do with what god is. and you are telling me that i should even care to talk to you, i really shouldn't be talking to you at this point as you don't even stick to the topic anymore and the more you use words like "moron" the more i understand that it is people like you who lack intelligence. i don't use personal attacks, get it, i use arguments related to the topic, all your personal attacks are pointless drivel that derails discussion on the topic. first you use your limited understanding of science to try to prove your ideology then you switch to personal attacks when you realize that your failed arguments don't work.

Who switched? I answered your stupid points 1 and 2. It is over your tirade.
So if someone writes fuck you under a proof then the proof isnt valid? Or when you were factually wrong and misinterpreted several topics, when you couldn't even write a persons name and then I said that you are a stupid bitch, then you are magically right because I said a nono word? Can't you see how stupid your arguments are?
The only thing that matters , that you are factually wrong, you misinterpreted and misrepresented several ideas which you used to support your idiotic arguments. I only demonstrated that exactly because you base or arguments on invalid facts, your whole thinking rests on air. Your whole demanding proof in itself is a well catalogued logical fallacy you poor bastard: One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. I dont have to prove anything, you moron: here learn something

Ps : owned your moron ass again, come to Papa dre

Just looked over some replies in this thread to you, anonymous said the same things that I said , much more kindly than me, you still couldn't understand it and you still cry over your go to argument which is "it has a personal attack". Just to provide a contrast for you what is a personal attack : fuck you, fuck your moroninc, good for nothing theories, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

I'd be pretty upset if a teen had demonstrated that I don't understand what I read or my "research" is bullshit
nigga pls, any more links about weighty subjects you know crap about like quantum theory?

have you actually read those articles? scientific racism is called scientific because it was backed by science beginning in 17th century up to the end of ww2, quantum theory states that act of observation changes outcome of experiment. all of your conclusions come from belief that science somehow is infallible which is very limited belief. i don't blindly believe in science just like i don't blindly belief in any other idea or concept including religious dogma that says bad people go to hell as you can have arbitrary definition of what is bad same way you can use science to back research that supports claims that black people are less intelligent than white people given same opportunities. all scientific research is backed by investors and things like scientific racism support that science is manipulated by governments based on what these governments want as outcome to support their views rather than some absolute truth, same way we don't see any research done on pollution-less free energy technology of nikola tesla who invented it long time ago that doesn't require any oil or nuclear energy.

science is the same instrument of control like religion before it and all governments use science to make people fear and be obedient as science instills fear of death and many other fears that were uncommon before. it's an instrument of control rather than some universal truth aimed to serve all of humanity.

So we are talking about the 17th century in the 21st? Dont you think some hundred years past by? Maybe time for updating your stupid beliefs? :D :D
Again, it is not a dogma, it is a methodology. End of fucking story.

Btw Multiple times you were factually wrong. Universal truth is: you suck dick

Go back living in a cave or send bombs to universities. Humans killed each other before science showed up. Still it saved more people than it killed just look at the world population you stupid fuck

https://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/...lation.jpg

ups, you are factually wrong again.

science allowed human population to increase exponentially but does it actually want or is capable to support all these people? there is numerous research done on climate change, eugenics, abortions,lgbt rights etc all aimed at reducing world population. science treats people like cattle that can be grown and reduced at will for the sake of "saving environment" all scientific research is aimed at looking at purely physical stuff, if people cause pollution what does science say or imply? lets increase abortions and any other possible means to reduce population and say that human fetuses have no feelings etc all these things are backed by science. science has very limited capability to predict the results of its impact on humanity which is why things like overpopulation arise. if human technological advancement weren't so overdone we would still be happily leaving on a farm or clean unpolluted city possibly with the same technology we have today. science increases the rate at which humanity destroys itself by increasing pollution of earth and is unsustainable if not limited by pure common sense and respect for human life that is taught by any spiritual work, spirituality helps to save humanity and grow wisdom, not destroy itself by looking at external factors and superficial goals. earth is a limited environment it can support only that much use, human intellect and wisdom and inward experience is unlimited and can grow without any impact on the environment that helps to sustain human life on this planet.

It is capable and supports it. There is no world wide famine and most of these people have access to healthcare. Climate change is also discovered by science.
The other stuff you mention just a conspiracy theories, which is fitting: reference topic here:

http://www.esreality.com/post/2896414/conspir...n-general/

you are welcome.

so now you start referencing other questionable esr threads to prove your point? again i am talking about my experience and it's not based on some article that is probably sponsored by the same people who promote abortions euthanasia etc. of course any government of the earth is not interested in people understanding that there is conspiracy against humanity and that humanity is being turned into a total slave by scientific "discoveries", there is nothing that tells me science has any meaningful impact on anyone's life other than pure physical comfort and other things of that nature. science never questions origins of reality or where we are going it only gives us tools that make our life easier and that in itself is not enough to have a meaningful life experience. again i would rather believe a conspiracy theory and not get that chip implanted in my head rather than be a blind believer that science only is interested in my well being and not control of my thoughts and way of life. when i imagine future i really see no way that science stripped of any moral restrains by religion is going to do good things for humanity, at first i am pretty sure what will happen would be scientific experiments on humans the same way they were done at extermination camps in ww2 germany and other countries occupied by nazi leaders and will probably end up in mass murder of most population in gas chambers or a new form of some scientifically engineered virus or disease or even self-replicating nanobots or any other scientific discovery that has no clue how it would impact the earth. non of that is disproved by science, only religion talks about moral aspects of any of these things. when science was in its infancy in 17th century there never was a possibility for humanity to destroy itself or the planet, now it's a totally sound possibility that a nuclear or any other form of global war would destroy humanity within days. same way even so called peaceful research may eventually lead to humanity being replaced by robots or cyborgs and all the other non-robotic humanity will be left to themselves, again why support all the extra non-scientifically aligned population and there is no "god" that will judge us right? scientific point of view is that we are all totally autonomous entities and that actions of others or our actions never get back to us and in reality if the entire universe and god is one than any of our actions and actions in distant galaxies and other universes do affect everything else so everyone has much higher sense of responsibility for their actions.

your experience means jackshit because you not once proved that you cant even understand what you read but somehow you are still confident that your conclusions are valid and that experience has value.
Im here to tell you it has none, you are no different from any misguided idiot. If youd throw a brick at an astrology convention it would hit 50 people like you.

"conspiracy against humanity and that humanity is being turned into a total slave by scientific "discoveries""

Do you think after this silliness you have any credibility left? :D :D

You are a complete retard. I skipped reading the rest of the text because I imagine it is more retardation.
You are a degenerate mongrel that should be shot down.

Your existence is mostly because of science. You couldn't write your idiocy on the internet without it. Your mother could have died with a good chance without it.
It enabled you to be as dumb motherfucker as you please, and you went full retard.
I really wish you die the soonest.

btw, from the corner of my eye i saw that you mention virus, gas chambers, nanobots , cyborgs

Just turn over and die please. Everything you think is a worthless attempt to live out a bad sci fi novel that an above average 8 grader wouldn't read without laughing.

you know what at this point i don't even know what you arguing about, i have posted videos of scientific theories that are supported by einstein in the topic that do prove that the entire universe and god or whatever you want to call it all are one single consciousness. when you use personal attacks all i understand is that you are the person who you think i am. every single personal attack is based on your personal belief and that belief is probably based on the things that you think of yourself unconsciously. i don't believe that people in general are dumb or that all people on earth want to kill humanity, i am talking about very few people at the top that deceive humanity into all of this things and humanity in general is good. your idea is that everyone who believes in religion or god are all delusional retarded loosers and that accounts for majority of population on planet earth, maybe you should try to find a different planet to live on rather than parasite onto what religious people do for you every day including faith that you one day might change. religion is not just belief but also behavior that is aimed to help other people, without that belief in helping other people the earth would have ended long time ago no matter how much science you would invent. my parents and i live in a country that practiced anti-religious atheism and believe me it's not a pretty sight to see, many people act like biggots, have no respect for others , i could go on, and all of this is result of people in this country fighting religion and trying to use science as ideology to explain everything. every single country that you might call non religious including north korea and china are not exemplary of human kindness or compassion, most people in these countries fear for their life as any of their actions might be misinterpreted as act against government etc, there is no good example of an atheistic government in history where people would feel safe and secure and contempt with their life.

you know what at this point i don't even know what you arguing about,

it is easy though.
My personal attacks are based on a single fact, you are a retard writing on the internet.
I will decide where I live thank you. Fuck your compassion you grand standing, dishonest imbecile.

another example of doctors "treating the symptomes"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/vacci...-on-ebola/

fuck you, retard boy

i don't discredit science completely

thanks for that but you cant say the same about yourself. Sad shit considering the bright future your post looked forward here on esreality.

I started with personal insults and plan to finish with them.
Your arguments do not require any science they fail on their own merit.
All of them based on a basic fallacy that got sprinkled with a shitload of misunderstanding.
Even this question makes zero sense other than underlines that you think science is an ideology or an arbiter in ideological musings.
Loser.

again you make assumptions based on your personal beliefs, i don't trust science anymore than i trust toilet to explain the meaning of my life or origin of reality. the purpose of toilet is so that i don't have to poo outside in the balcony, not to explain to me my life purpose or meaning of life.

then exactly why the fuck you are talking about it you miserable dolt?

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

"God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

yeyeye I heard all this from jehovas witnesses , any new stuff or still using the thousand year book people voted and edited together at the time when taking a shit on the street was the norm?

It transcends time and space and is universal truth. I'd suggest you to read the first quote once again.

I'm not here to attack you or to prove you wrong. Just want to give you some insight.

nah thanks

but i appreciate the intention

Shouldn't earth be shaped like a donut.

I am Thor's hammer

no, you're an angry person with an internet connection

Sorry, my personal belief is just as good as the op's.
You cant prove that I'm not thors hammer in human form, end of story.
Thank you for your input, now eat my dick.

I belive only psycopath abrahamic religions always wants to belive in a god, our mind can not answer such questions, that is the ultimate mystery, just like what is goingon inside Timmy wilitus 's brain

Whatever was before the big bang is something that makes big bangs, and probably has been doing it forever. But we can only speculate what it is that makes them. I think maybe theres something about empty space that means it somehow randomly generates oddities and sometimes they combine in strange ways, and you get things like big bangs. It doesn't mean there aren't god like beings out there, its just that they would also owe their existence to that phenomenon as well.

yeah and it also comes down to what we believe in if big bang was result of another action of some sort. i also think it depends on peoples experience and research that they might have done on the topic.i often pondered that question as a kid "what if universe never existed". i think using the word god in this context mislead the topic of discussion as people get confused what it means as we had all kinds of gods in our history. i am actually trying to find explanation for god in line with science or at least logical explanation of god as source of all that is and how it works. i don't believe god is some object in universe but rather some super-reality from which universe was born like higher dimension or dimensionless state.

dont ponder please, you are obviously not built for it. Ample evidence above

Throwing shit is permissible, as you plainly do?

even my shit is better than this guys research .

fizzle

A being with no form.
No-thing.
Split itself into 3.
positive, negative, neutral.

fashioned everything out of its split self.

Exists in pieces throughout all of time.
Finite and infinite.

Currently exists simultaniously as god, the devil, and every single thing in the universe.

Schizo time traveller.

The body is the temple.


look up Jewish/kabbalah creation called tsim tsum.
pretty cool.

Nice post.

But I would advice anyone against using/incorporating Kabbalah.

yea, kabbalah is really dangerous

Before the Big Bang everything was nicer.




and...




...COOLLER

that kind of unmanifest pre-big bang world does give me warm fuzzies, but i guess it could be boring at times which is why i think we are all here and not all the way back at the source. if god is everything than i guess everything is basically connected to god in some invisible form like the fingers of a hand. that world sure is cooler than current manifest one, i think if there is a way for us to get back there it's probably as easy as looking back but we just never considered doing it as it's so close to us. like i remember a spiritual teacher explaining it as a homeless man sitting on a box of gold begging for money on the street and someone came up to him and said "did you look at the box you sit on" and he was like it's just a box i sit on for all my life what could possibly be there. i believe it's great way to explain that god or ultimate reality is so close to us that we never really considered looking at it.

why dont you just record your farts? The world would miss nothing and it is easier than typing so much nonsense. It may also contain more wit.

meh , we all gods, gods of our own vessels through this idiotic thing we call "life" , exist only a few "seconds" relative to the universe time .

ssshhh , relax, play quake and make clones .

Whatever created the Big Bang is sort of irrelevant as far as the existence of God is concerned. What if we find out that a God did create the Big Bang but that it is such an alien intelligence that it has no concern for Earth or any life in the universe? Or what if God is the unconscious physical laws of the universe? You could pick any arbitrary first mover you want, it doesn't really matter because people want some higher power that cares about their existence, not just an explanation of the origins of the universe.

That's really the crux of it. No one worships in an apathetic, indifferent first mover of the cosmos. If you were okay with that, then worship the Big Bang as God. Believing in such a first mover is almost wholly pointless that I'd say it's irrelevant whether you believe it or not. What people really want to believe is a God who cares and loves for them and looks out for them. A personal God who thinks of you and makes sure that all your pain and suffering has meaning. This requires a certain degree of solipsism to believe, something that is innate to humans simply because we only live our own experiences, never others.

Science has slowly eroded that ontological hubris, especially the Judeo-Christian varieties which came with a plethora of demonstrably incorrect scientific claims about the natural world. God didn't create Earth and put it at the center of the universe. God didn't create all life and give humans dominion over it. We're evolved primates, extremely flawed and short-lived, who live insignificant lives on an insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy in some insignificant place in a possibly infinite multiverse at some arbitrary point in time.

Some religions also do it by changing what you identify yourself as, for example the only reason we see things as separate, is for the purposes of survival, calculation, communication and so on. But in reality everything is ultimately one single thing, but can't see that in our every day lives. That gives some people solace, in the sense that if they identify with/as everything, they can't ever really die. It also has a knock on effect of people wanting to be nice to each other once they believe it.

I'm not saying I believe it, but I think its interesting. I prefer it to the idea of God. At least you can see some merit in it, like, at the boundary of what you would call yourself, things get pretty fuzzy, to the point where we accept our boundaries on a macroscopic scale, but when you get into the details, its not as obvious.

well said

Fuck me! Another Timmy thread!

10/10 didnt read

Thats the question that fascinates me more, why something exists? And that something, where did it came from? Ask that question recursively, whats the origin of anything? Why there is space? Atoms? Matter? Energy?

If you really abstract yourself on that question, its an amazing feeling of Why? and How?

I think its a question that comes from us being human, and living in a world where things begin and end. So we assume is must have began, because everything we experience does. But maybe it never did begin. Maybe if you were to take everything out, what you'd be left with would look like nothingness, but maybe there is something about nothingness which means it can't stay that way forever. You know, sort of like the casimir effect where particles appear randomly in a completely empty vacuum. In a way, maybe its like asking how did gravity begin, but gravity is always there in potential.

yea it fascinates me as well, but it cannot be answered. if I start thinking how tiny and insignificant we are in comparison to cosmos and time and what is the meaning of it all, then I become heavily depressed (therefore, I don't). I can feel it in my bones and in every cell of my body. tbh, I don't think that many ppl can really comprehend it and thus, the thought of it won't have any impact on their feelings.

ps: I think that thoughts like those, are what made avicci suicide (if he actually did), who was imo a genius.

Depresses? In my case its the opposite, it lights a big curiosity fire.

Imo avicci was murdered, he was aware of the corrupt system and was starting to become a problem. Being famous and wealthy and going agains the beast is a no no.

it lights a big curiosity fire on me too, but then if you try to answer those questions, it becomes painful

why do we exist? why anything exists? who created everything? who created the one who created everything? how did it start? what is the purpose of anything? is there any meaning?

nothing makes sense to me. if I was a very young kid, would have stopped at the curiosity part and not worry much about answers. After all, what a kid can answer? But as an adult, I am fully capable of thinking really deep myself, probably as deep as anyone and nothing makes sense and can't find an answer and I am sure that none can. It is something that a human brain can't comprehend.

The real question is this:

Who came first Timmy or reality itself?

I know it's Impossible to answer but worth looking into if any such tool exists...

There may just be nothing beyond the cosmic light horizon. It may be that we can never create a technology to allow us to determine this.

Or, there might indeed be a creator: SimCity 9000 running a simplistic ancestor simulation, running at 1000fps on a rusted space toaster found in the garbage.

It is what it is. Let's make the most of it :)

cheese

There was a giant peener...
And a giant vageener....
A bottle of vodka....



The big bang

http://www.esreality.com/post/2914375/what-is...gang-bang/

kinda appalling that these people can vote

are you telling me that people that believe in god should be equated to monkeys? does the person who can understand what god is has less or more intelligence that is the question. atheism in itself doesn't prove that a person is more intelligent than a believer. science can't prove god doesn't exist so automatically people who don't believe in god don't really have any argument supported by science, it's their personal belief so any difference between their intelligence and believers in god is imaginary. a person can be atheist and extremely shallow and person can believe in god and be very smart, moreover i believe that those that do believe in god have higher understanding of the world than those who don't. atheism is lack of something it's not existence of something. and often atheism is created by limited understanding or lack of ability to understand the concept of god rather than a proven fact. most if not all atheists lack understanding of what god actually means and they start labeling the word as some entity in the universe that is made up by people, god is not an entity in the universe and cannot be proven false by science, therefore atheism is based on belief, not any proven fact.

Every person can produce theories. If there are 1 billion theories then there is too much information for my brain to handle. I need a system to filter out the noise. Luckily for me the approach has already been worked out.

Positivism is the view that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method (techniques for investigating phenomena based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning).

The principle is simple: you have to prove that something is, not that something is not. This is to prevent charlatan generated noise based on "belief" and "feelings".

The other way to go about it. Every theory will be given a probability of being true aka an index how accurately it describes the world/universe based on our current knowledge. Sure, whatever your redefinition of god is could be true, but there are other theories out there that are as or more compelling. When an atheist says there is "no god" or they don't agree with your whatever you are explaining here they are just saying that on the spectrum of all possible explanations it's not very high up. They don't really give 0% chance, more like 0.0001%.

Edit:

Added few more zeroes for clarification.

again it's based on belief not a fact, if science can't prove god doesn't exist than any explanation that denies god is based on belief, not fact. probability is the same bogus belief that if science can't prove something exists than it doesn't exist at all. again it's all based on belief, not a fact. i don't discredit science but what i believe science does is very limited in the grand scheme of things, science can't make someone happy or fulfilled, it can only give people description of what phenomenal world is and even then it's limited to theories that science proposes as explanation how the world works. again atheism is mostly based on denial of obvious things rather than deeper understanding of reality. i don't propose that my theory is exact to the point, there is plenty other explanations of what god is, but they all agree that he exists and that he is one and all that is etc. i am not proposing to build a sect or to worship some absurd idol etc. i am simply trying to question what could be out there beyond what science can explain.

As I said before - you should not be able to vote.

why? so that mindless people who believe in science should decide the fate of humanity? do you realize the result that scientific atheism is going to have on humanity long-term? from the things i heard from atheists they somehow believe that they are superior to everyone else and that in itself shows how inhumane they are.

They at least get shit done.

they invented many things that put humanity at risk of existence, we have genetically engineered viruses and humanity being replaced by ai to name a few things that will happen in near future thanks to science. they get stuff done that brings humanity closer and closer to self destruction.

So where would we be without them?

so you are telling me it's ok to be killed by our own short-sighted technological advances? a virus that is genetically engineered can kill millions of people and a new virus could be invented every week, same way with ai where an army of intelligent self reliant ai armed drones can terrorize a city of any country indefentely.

a virus that is genetically engineered can save millions of people as well you idiot
an army of drones can make mass pussy pictures
in your case you can also watch dicks with them, I know thats what you want


Faggot

What about electricity or the computer you are using? They are also spawns of the devilish scientific mind. If you were true to your arguments you'd be sitting under a tree, naked, not using Internet and computers for memes and games.

Just stop. You're not getting anywhere like this and nothing you can say is going to make any difference.

Indeed

There's no evidence of God to begin with. There are infinitely many things that could be imagined to exist -- Santa Claus, the Easter bunny rabbit, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, etc. -- that do not, in fact, exist. It is not useful to start with imagining something exists and then working backwards to prove it doesn't exist. Instead, start with a much simpler premise: believe in things based on whether there's evidence of their existence. You wouldn't spontaneously start thinking there was an elephant in the room with you unless there were some evidence that there were, right?

Or another example: A house fire. Would you start with the premise that your house is on fire and then work backwards to prove it is not? Unless you're prone to (or at risk of) setting your house on fire, you're probably okay assuming your house is NOT on fire unless there's evidence: smoke, crackling wood sounds, heat, or flames.

So why begin with the premise that God exists unless you have evidence that he/she/it does?

There is no independent evidence that God (or Gods) exist. Nor is it necessary that they do according to our current understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, and biology, etc.. The fact that we can explain as much as we can about our natural world without 1 iota of a concept like "God" should give you pause.

the thing is god is not a material object in the universe somewhere, it's not possible to prove he exists using a scientific method. it's like saying my thoughts don't really exist because science can't read thoughts or feelings. they exist somewhere in some form but whether they can be proved using a scientific method is whole different story. god is even more complex because he might be beyond physical world so it's like emptiness or nothingness, how can you prove nothingness exists if it's nothing at all.

Santa Claus is not material either. He's a 0-dimensional being beyond space and time which explains why he can deliver presents to the world's children all in one night.

You assume a lot about the nature of God. Where do you get this information?

santa clause is a picture in your head, you can give it physical characteristics, something or rather "no thing" that doesn't exist in physical world can not be even imagined. i am talking about the level at which human mind can't even comprehend what it is same as monkey can not understand what human thinks about.

i am again not talking about some physical or any other entitiy that can be given exact description like a giant human that controls strings from the other dimension.

from what i understand none of the world religions talk exactly what god is.

What makes you think God is different than Santa Claus? Did you have visions from God that told you that? If not, where did you learn this? A divine book or a person? The fact you have this idea in your head depends on something material in this world that is observable and subject to scrutiny. If the nature of God is what you claim it is, how would anyone actually know that? Lucky guess?

You're speaking in platitudes. It seems deep to say God is incomprehensible or immaterial or 0-dimensional but that says nothing about the ACTUAL nature of God or God's existence. Why is it necessary that God be like that? Why can't God be so obvious and interwined and fundamental to everything about reality that denying God's existence would be considered a mental illness? It seems a lesser quality to be invisible than visible, immaterial than material, 0-dimensional than multi-dimensional.

again a monkey with instruments will not be able to understand what a human thinks. you are trying to confine god to some easily explainable description and that in itself is like a monkey trying to define human thought within its limited intellectual abilities. science did not bring about the creation of the universe, it only came about to approximate description of how it works, never be sure that science is an all knowing explanation to everything that is.

another explanation - does monkey actually understand that the cage it lives in was built by humans? lets pretend monkey is humanity as a whole, how would humanity in that case understand it's living in a world that is perpetually constructed by god if it can't even understand how god works. let's not overestimate human intellect as we all for sure know history of humanity and how it behaves and there is nothing tells me humanity in general is any smarter than most other animals on earth.

How do you know any of this? If it is as you say, we are analogous to monkies trying to under God's thoughts, how would you know that?

It's not that I don't understand your argument. I've heard it many times before. But it makes no sense how you come to your conclusions when you yourself are saying it's impossible to makes conclusions and that no evidence exists...

i don't say that god is some entity that fits exact description, and what science tells us is that everything should have exact description. (god is not a thing to begin with so it cant be exactly defined, you can only describe some of its qualities like omnipresence etc but that in itself does not give it exact definition)

religion again never defines god as some entity flying in the universe.

scientific method again is a tool that is used to describe entities or separate objects or situations in the universe.

i think most people who refer to science to disprove god don't understand what god actually is and they refer to science to disprove "santa claus" rather than real definition of god which in itself is impossible to define in exact terms like you can define any entity.

You're making claims about the nature of God. You're the one defining what God is or is not. According to you, God is beyond our comprehension, immaterial, external to our universe, etc.. Where do you get that information? _IF_ you are correct, how would you even know that to be true? It would be a contradiction for you to even know the nature of God of if God's nature is what you say it is.

it's based on my life experience, i don't again refer to god as a set of exact terms. you keep defining god as some exact definition that i should know if i know what god is. i can only give approximation based on my life experience. a monkey can now what banana is but if monkey tries to argue about things like were that banana came from it can only probably say it came from a tree and anything beyond that is it's own speculation, my definition of god is not based on that, i only say it's approximation of reality, i don't claim like science to be an all knowing entity.

No, you're making claims about the nature of God. And based on what life experiences??? What sort of life experiences would inform you about the nature of God?

Also, no genuine scientist claims science is all knowing. That's a strawman you have concocted. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Religions (and theists) claim to know things that scientists do not. There's a long, long history of absolute conclusions and judgements by the devout in the past and present that have caused immense human suffering.

Again, you're the one making claims about the nature of God. Do yourself a favor and think on why that is...

i am not sure what you mean by nature of god? like is god an alien or a santa claus? as i said i don't believe in zeus or any other entity like that, it's only based on my non-drugged non hallucination or any other perception based life experience, and priests say that any experience based on perception is false so i can't even say that experience is valid as it's me trying to imagine things to some extent. god is like presence that i feel, or rather something i can't even feel, i am not giving it any physical attributes. it's like a gut feeling.

Describe again your God.

Edit: Your gut feeling is subject to scrutiny. At some point, our understanding of the human brain will be sufficient to investigate the origins of your "gut feeling" and I'm willing to bet that it's got nothing to do with God. It's just your own manufactured sense of self importance.

as i said to me god is emptiness or space, it has no perceptible qualities.

Emptiness is a quality. Just as is existence.

emptiness is nothing. it's again your imagination. it's impossible to give emptiness any qualities, it's not even there to begin with.

Saying a cup is empty says something about the cup. Emptiness is a quality.

now you are just arquing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm not. I think you're genuinely confused about this. You can't make claims about the nature of God but pretend you're not by trying to obscure it with language/semantics. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, your making claims that aren't based on any higher truth than your own human experience which is material and subject to scrutiny.

i am not claiming god to be anything at all in itself. it's simply up to people ability to understand my wording.

Not only are you, but you're making claims about what science can and can't do.

can science disprove existence of god? if it can't than there is no scientific evidence that there is no god and the rest of it is based on human speculation.

i am not claiming god to be anything at all, do i have to repeat it again, i said it's approximation of what i think god is based on my experience.

i can describe the part of god that comes in contact with phenomenal world, but as far as god itself goes i have no idea what's there.

i think my idea is similar to a black hole, i can imagine what's around black hole, but i have no clue what's inside there.

Effectively, yes. There is less room for a God to exist the more we know about the universe, the world, and our place in it. The existence of God becomes not only unnecessary but also in conflict with how the universe started and its nature. This has been the trajectory of mankind's relationship with God(s) since the dawn of human history. The more we understand, the less space there is for God. Eventually, we'll understand enough that antiquated ideas like God will seem fascinating in how retrograde they are.

Evolution was really the final nail in the coffin for any meaningful God(s). What's left to cling to are these impersonal Gods (like yours) which are arbitrary in their necessity to exist and to be believed in. If all God is to you is the originator of the universe, then you should have no problem worshipping the Big Bang or the laws of physics. It makes no difference to you or God in that case.

again you try to wrap your mind around something that effectively doesn't exist in phenomenal world. it's like trying to give attributes to nothing, nothing is nothing, there is no way to describe it, you can only describe some of the effects that it might have on the universe like the origination of the universe or some of the experiences of people. if you listen to the priests or any spiritual teachers, none of them describe god as a man with beard, they say some of its qualities like god is love, but is love a material object in universe? it's just funny how you keep trying to use study of the phenomenal world to describe a non physical or nonexistent phenomenon. god is not personal because he is available to everyone who is ready to listen and interact with him.

Hmm, have you read the Bible?

Genesis 1:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Look, I don't care if you worship "nothing" or a hand-waving, esoteric, immaterial, non-entity. I don't care even if you worship a personal god. But if all you're on about is worshiping an impersonal, indifferent creator of the universe, why not just worship the Big Bang? If it's all the same, it doesn't seem to make any difference to you whether you worship the Big Bang or the laws of physics.

Let's be real with ourselves: The only capacity in which it is non-trivial what to worship as the creator of the universe is a personal God. That's really what Judeo-Christian, and most other, religions focus on. A God that cares. Otherwise, like I said, you're as good worshiping the Big Bang as you are anything else. It makes no difference to either you or whatever you're worshiping.

the reason i don't worship bing bang is because it's unverifiable theory through my experience, i can't experience bing bang on day to day basis the way i can experience god at any single time. i am not believing in a made up theory. again you are using study of physical world to explain away non-physical phenomenon. you are playing with your imagination and trying to use imagination to imagine what believers believe instead of direct experience of god that is not based on imagination.

In reply #138 you stated::

"god is even more complex because he might be beyond physical world so it's like emptiness or nothingness"

So, you're okay with worshiping nothingness but something that's unverifiable is a bridge too far?

I really wish that people would stop bumping your post or that the admins would just ban you or probation you or something because this is just too much.

you are playing with your imagination and trying to use imagination to imagine what believers believe instead of direct experience of god that is not based on imagination.

I really wish that people would stop bumping your post or that the admins would just ban you or probation you or something

do you see why it's pointless to talk to you, you can't even stop for a second to consider my statement.

I've considered every single thing I read in this post. That's how I was able to type comment #194.

And, I've also considered that some ESR members make Alex Jones seem like a sane person even though he is not.

btw, I do get that I'm bumping this post while saying I wish it'd stop. But my 10 minute posting window here is irrelevant because there are still people that would bump it in a while, anyway. But I'll stop that now.

again you are suggesting that i should worship a theory instead of god, which in itself is an absurd statement. it's like "hey i have no clue what you worship, why don't you worship a kettle in your kitchen instead."

Precisely! You'll get precisely the same value out of worshiping that kettle as you will worshiping an impersonal God who doesn't care about your existence. And you're right, it is absurd!

your thesis was that god be it personal or not is a delusion of the human mind. i use this as an argument that you suggest that kettle is equal to god, even though you have trouble understanding what god is. i use the word personal in a sense that it's not like every person has a different god, but that god is available to anyone at all times.

that god is available to anyone at all times

What precisely does this mean? "Available"?

What I mean by "personal God" is that it cares you exist or not. That it has some level of empathy/sympathy for your life. In other words, it would be upset if you perished or suffered. On the other hand, a purely theist view of God (like the one you claimed to believe in before you edited the original post), where God is only a first mover and has no further interest in whatever is happening within the universe, is not a "personal God". It doesn't care if you suffer or die. You could be the most unlucky person in the world, born with all sorts of physical ailments and disabilities, with a daily nightmarish hellscape of a life, and this impersonal God wouldn't perform any miracles to save you from this torment because it does not care. That's what I mean by a God that is not a "personal God".

=| I guess I should stop, eh? It's entertaining to watch the mental gymnastics, though.

Wait, didn't you just say God is the same thing? Unverifiable through experience? You're not making any sense, as far as I can tell. Either something is verifiable or it is not.

Besides, the Big Bang is consistent with a lot of very well-established, well-known physics. We won't be able to rewind time but we can put a whole lot of the existing pieces of the puzzle together and make very high probability judgments about what came before... This isn't just a theory floating off, independent of other things. It is coherent with a much broader picture of what we know about the universe.

according to big bang universe came out of nowhere, how does that theory come in conflict with what i believe god to be nothing? you have trouble understanding science itself.

Actually, there's no evidence that there was nothing before the Big Bang. There's competing theories about what preceded the Big Bang. There's the multiverse theory which says there's an infinite number of universes, each with their own different physics. There's another theory that blackholes contains other universes. Another theory that the universe repeats itself in an endless, eternal cycle that ends with heat death and then another Big Bang. I think Stephen Hawking's theory was that gravity is what jumped start the Big Bang. And so forth.

I am okay with it being unknown and that we wait for the evidence to tell us what it is. I don't need to hold absolute beliefs about what it is without sufficient evidence.

all the theories you describe deal with space and time, finite quantities that have beginning and end. what you describe was that there was something at the beginning and that something can only be nothing. nothing is the unknowable it's just isn't there for the brain to grasp. which makes perfect sense to me as it has no beginning or end, its endless infinity or nothing. it might be anything you want to call and might have infinite possibilities of producing any kind of phenomenon. it can be personal or impersonal its all encompassing always permeating everything including everyone's thoughts and feelings and aspirations it's all you can imagine and nothing at the same time.

So you want people to believe in something that has no physical attributes, gives no indication of its existance and does not interact with anybody. Nobody has ever seen it, heard it, touched it or has any reason at all to give it any credibility.

There is a seven foot tall walking talking rabbit with green fur, who lives under my house and keeps it safe when I am not home. I am certain of this. We have gone under the house looking for him, but due to his large ears he always hears us coming first and hides, therefore I have never seen him. But I can feel his presence, sometimes I even hear him scratching about down there.

Now will you
A) Consider the talking rabbit might be real, because you cant possibly proove that he does not run and hide when I go looking for him.
OR
B) Draw upon your experiance in this world and conclude that you have no reason to belive such things as talking rabbits exist.

If you choose A there is no hope for you.

If you choose B then now you know what most of the people in this thread feel when they hear your view on these things that cant be disproved (existance of a god)

Another thing. Why do you want to call it God? Cant you pick your own word for it? If I ask 1000 people what is god i will get 999 different answers. If nobody can agree what god means then maybe stop using that word as it just aggrivates people who either have their own view of what it is, or think it isnt anything at all.

Think for a second really please, why do you need to use that word? It means something different to you than everybody else so what can you possibly convey with that word?

You are actully hijacking the word and trying to say i think god is "this" which quite frankly you have absuloutly no way to verify. Infact you even try to say that its possible because it cant be verified.

Well you must understand, just like my giant talking rabbit, if you cant verifiy it then nobody really cares or belives it. That just the way it is.

You can try to be spiritual all you want, but it seems to me its you who needs a god and not god who needs you, and its the same for many many people through history. They just want something to believe because unable to accept some things are beyond their comprehension or just not possible to know.

You dont see an ant walking along and get upset because you cant possibly know all the paths he took to reach that point, its something you will never know, just deal with it sainly.

Edit: Your original post, I though you were elluding to god as some kind of super conciousness. Like maybe the whole universe as a whole is like a giant brain of electrical connections with a conciousness. You know I think its a pretty cool idea and I would never try to argue thats not possible. Infact I think its an idea that crosses many people mind at some point. However you just cant verify that and you certainly shouldn't go around calling it god. People will be much more receptive if you just explain what you think without involving that over used word.

Edit edit: Also the anti-science thing is a little much. So much of the view you have constructed is based on science. You use the word "universe" for example. Had you been born however many hundred's of years ago you might have believed the sky was a giant snow dome glass bubble with hundreds of candles at night. Without science you wouldn't even know of the universe beyond at all to base any further theories.

Think about, in the ages past how many people or civilizations or whatever actully thought the sun in the sky was a god. Millions of people probably thought that, and now we are pretty certain they were all wrong because science.

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsgen1.htm

there's so much more to the old testament than bad-faith literal interpretations of bad translations.

Oh, right, no one is taking the Bible literally anymore... Forgot about that. It's all metaphorical. :rolling_eyes:

i didn't say anything about nobody taking the bible literally anymore, nor did i say anything about it all being metaphorical.

Explain what you meant by "bad faith literal interpretation" and I will explain why this...

if you listen to the priests or any spiritual teachers, none of them describe god as a man with beard

...is patently wrong.

that isn't what i said. i said there's so much more to the old testament than bad-faith literal interpretations of bad translations.

and that is exactly what i meant. how else do you want me to explain it? the old testament wasn't written by contemporary scholars in english, it was written by members of a different culture in hebrew. my intent was to share with you a scholarly resource by which you can begin to educate yourself. the resource i shared was a link to strong's concordance, which is an academically acceptable source for translating the old testament by using a reference that contains terms and definitions that much more accurately match the original meanings provided by the hebrew language than those that were decided on by the church when the king james version was translated from hebrew, greek, and latin sources. strong's concordance allows curious readers to trace translations back to the original hebrew writings, and from there refine their understanding.

google defines bad faith as 'intent to deceive'. when you cite that verse as a rhetorical point to diminish the value of somebody else's position without acknowledging that the translation and the literal interpretation of the translation is inherently flawed and that there are a wide variety of possible interpretations due to the nature of translation of ancient works from ancient cultures, then you are rhetorically use that verse in bad faith. you have crafted a straw man of yahweh (the elohim of the israelites, according to the old testament), and you cherry pick a translation that, when read literally, most closely supports the straw man you've crafted, all while, whether intentionally or unintentionally, ignoring or being ignorant of the reality that the hebrew version of the bible composed by that ancient hebrew culture can be interpreted much differently than what is expressed in contemporary or classical english. this is true of any ancient text that is translated to any language, and it is true of many contemporary texts translated to any language. i'll add, and this is just my opinion at this point, that you also demonstrate your ignorance of historical religion by so brazenly and arrogantly committing such a stupid expression to the "permanent" record of this site. i recommend that you educate yourself so as not to do it again. so, that is what i mean by 'bad faith literal interpretations of bad translations'.

i want to be very clear, translation of ancient and classical and contemporary works is difficult. that is why the phrase 'lost in translation' exists. understanding translated texts, especially ancient texts, requires care and consideration for the context of the material and the mechanics of translation. you've demonstrated striking ignorance in this regard.

You replied to a reply I made to another user. You're either getting caught in the crossfire or don't belong in the conversation if you want to take it to some esoteric discussion about how many different ways to interpret the Bible. There are clearly priests and spiritual leaders who take it very literally that God is a Man and Man was created in God's image. It is also fundamental to Christian theology that there's this strong link between God and Man. First, in Genesis, the text says so but also the fact that Jesus, God's son, is in human form. Furthermore, God gave Man dominion over the world because of their special place among his creations. Again, this relates back to God creating Man in his own image.

It is no accident it has been interpreted this way -- that God's image was as a Man -- because prior to many scientific discoveries, Man considered itself the center of the universe. The Sun revolved around the Earth, Earth is where God sent his only begotten Son, Man was a special creation, independent of all the other species of animal on Earth, and so forth. But as we've learned more about the natural world and the universe, we realize the "special place" Man has is not so special: the Sun does not revolve around the Earth and all life, including Man, evolved from a common ancestor.

Of course, people will interpret it a billion different ways but it is a colossal error to say that no one interprets God as a Man. Furthermore, it would be an error to say a majority do not. I think most people on this planet -- the billions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims -- view God as a Man. You'll find some smaller religions or sects that say God's image is not that of a Man but I never claimed otherwise.

who are you to tell me that i don't belong in the conversation? this is an open forum that allows anonymous users to respond to any comment. i didn't want to take anything to any esoteric discussion. this discussion wasn't even necessary. all i said is "there is so much more to the old testament bad-faith literal interpretations of bad translations", and from that you teased out some nonsense about how "nobody takes the bible literally anymore" and "it's all metaphorical". you then expressed a "rolled eyes" emoji. i provided a valuable resource for you, and you responded with assumptive nonsense while rolling your eyes at me.

my entire point in joining the conversation was to give you a resource with which you may educate yourself so that you don't commit the bad-faith act of referencing a literal interpretation of a bad translation to make a rhetorical point. somebody made a casual rhetorical point (none of them describe god as a man with beard) that you ungraciously interpreted literally, and rather than doing the work of finding a single priest or spiritual leader describing "god" as a "man with a beard", you cited an english translation of the bible that doesn't describe god as a man with a beard, and you did it in bad-faith.

the rest of your post has no bearing on what i said, and so i do not feel compelled to engage you in some pointless argument that i don't have a position in. i refuse to allow you to drag me down to your level. get behind me, satan!

also, i don't care about your explanation for why what you quoted is patently wrong. so unless you just want to share it, you can save your energy.

http://www.esreality.com/post/2914375/what-is...pid2915365

Eh, I'm bored so this is vaguely entertaining for the moment. I appreciate the thought, though!

Just watchin' out for a brother.

Instead, start with a much simpler premise: believe in things based on whether there's evidence of their existence.

that's a great point. is there evidence of intelligent design?

In so far as it still includes the religious bits, nope.

There's a spectrum of ID -- from very religious to borderline agnostic -- but fundamentally it's still an attempt to co-op current scientific understanding to support Christian myths. A central crux of the Christian faith is our relationship with God and the special role humans have on Earth. That dogma is obliterated by evolutionary theory. So ID attempts to get around this by accepting some general ideas about speciation but saying it was designed that way. The problem is that evolution is messy and also does not give humans any special treatment in the animal kingdom. As soon as you start mentioning we're primates and chimpanzees are genetically our cousins, most IDers start to shit the bed.

i don't know what you're talking about or why you're saying it. i'm just asking if there's evidence for intelligent design, and you're talking about evolution and the cruxes of christianity. i asked a simple question, is there evidence of intelligent design?

No, there's no evidence of an intelligent designer.

i didn't ask if there's evidence of an intelligent designer. i asked if there's evidence of intelligent design.

Uhhhh, can there be one without the other?

Uhhhh uhhh duhhh are you going to answer my question?

I did, multiple times... I'm sorry that a more than 1 word response to your question is so confounding to you. In response to your question whether there's evidence for intelligent design, I said:

In so far as it still includes the religious bits, nope.

and

No, there's no evidence of an intelligent designer.

If that's not sufficient, here's a variety-pack for you: Nope, no, nay, nix, not at all, nope-a-reeno.

You're responding to me on an intelligently designed internet.

That was the punchline you were building up to this entire time?

It isn't a punchline. You said: Instead, start with a much simpler premise: believe in things based on whether there's evidence of their existence. you then said that there is no evidence for intelligent design, to which I responded with an example of intelligent design.

You're referring to intelligent design, in a thread about religion and God, as literally anything that was intelligently designed? Basically, any intelligence that has designed something (e.g., a bird's nest or an ant's colony)?

I assumed you were making a joke because if you're trying to make some bigger point relevant to this thread/topic -- like the fact there's intelligent life must mean there's an intelligent designer of the universe -- it would be dramatically flawed.

i'm not referring to anything as anything. i asked you if there is evidence for intelligent design, you said no, and i provided evidence for intelligent design.

you said: Instead, start with a much simpler premise: believe in things based on whether there's evidence of their existence.

you must, therefore, believe in intelligent design (or rescind your statement). the issue is not whether or not you believe in 'god' (whatever that word is supposed to mean), but to what scale you attribute 'intelligence' in its application to what you perceive to be reality. based on our shared experience of using the internet to communicate, and based on our agreement that the internet was intelligently designed, we can state, unequivocally, that at least some part of the universe is intelligently designed. maybe you aren't allowing yourself to absorb the ramifcations of that obvious fact in your haste to belittle me about whether or not i'm making jokes and to make (very, very poor) assumptions about my intentions.

Right, I would never argue that there is no such thing as "intelligent design" which is a wholly different than the "intelligent design" that is peddled by Christian creationists. I don't feel the slightest bit aggrieved about saying so since I am conceding nothing. I am fairly sure you're aware of this but you're clearly playing games. This thread is about the "ultimate origin of the universe" and therefore bringing up "intelligent design" in this context would surely be either the Christian creationist movement OR totally irrelevant to the topic.

There is, however, no evidence of a creator of the universe (in the Christian creationist sense of "intelligent design") which is why I qualified my first response to your question as follows.

In so far as it still includes the religious bits, nope.

and

No, there's no evidence of an intelligent designer [of the universe].

I can only presume you are attempting to argue that because there is intelligence within the universe, that must mean that an intelligence, independent of the universe, must've created it. The teleological argument has been refuted in a variety of ways over the past several hundred years and I cannot contribute anything of value to those who have. Feel free to read about that in your own time if you wish to educate yourself. But I will respond to the specifics of what you're saying here:

but to what scale you attribute 'intelligence' in its application to what you perceive to be reality. based on our shared experience of using the internet to communicate, and based on our agreement that the internet was intelligently designed, we can state, unequivocally, that at least some part of the universe is intelligently designed

Your conflating different definitions of "reality". In one sense of the word, there is the ultimate "reality" of the universe, the physical laws and forces that resulted in the big bang, the galaxies, stars and planets, life on Earth, and so forth. In another sense, there's the human experience which could be called a "reality". I guess you think these only as differences in scale and nothing else but that is not the only difference. One (the universe) is necessary for the other (human experience) to exist, but the opposite is not true. You cannot infer anything from human experience to make claims about the nature of the universe. When a human designs and builds a house, he is not changing the physical laws of the universe to do so. The existence of the human explains nothing about the creation of the universe in the same sense that the fish does not explain the creation of the ocean it swims in.

Furthermore, you encounter the issue of infinite regress with this argument that intelligence (at our human "scale") implies a cosmic intelligence that created the universe because it begs the question: then who intelligently designed the creator of the universe? And if it's another creator of the creator, who designed them? And so forth.

This thread is about the "ultimate origin of the universe" and therefore bringing up "intelligent design" in this context would surely be either the Christian creationist movement OR totally irrelevant to the topic.

wrong.

I can only presume you are attempting to argue that because there is intelligence within the universe, that must mean that an intelligence, independent of the universe, must've created it.

wrong.

the rest of your post is related to your bad assumptions, which doesn't apply to what i said, and therefore i do not feel compelled to engage it with an in-kind response.

the rest of your post is related to your bad assumptions, which doesn't apply to what i said, and therefore i do not feel compelled to engage it with an in-kind response.

Wrong. Looks like we're at an impasse!

you said: I can only presume you are attempting to argue that because there is intelligence within the universe, that must mean that an intelligence, independent of the universe, must've created it.

you then said: I guess you think these only as differences in scale and nothing else but that is not the only difference[/b]

you admit that you're "presuming" and "guessing" about my positions, and then you go on to respond to those presumptions and guesses. now you say i'm wrong for saying that your responses to those presumptions and guesses don't apply to what i said.

Go ahead and state your opinion then. But I will presume/guess that you won't. You'll go on about how this isn't about your opinion, that I'm the one who needs to reply to your queries (which you will assert that I haven't), you don't feel it's your job to explain yourself, blah blah blah, the usual dodges...

i don't know what opinion you want me to express. i haven't claimed to have an opinion to express. i asked you if there's evidence for intelligent design, you said no, i gave evidence, and then you started telling me about what my intent was, and how you can only presume that i'm attempting to argue. i wasn't making any attempt to argue, and i didn't express any positions. at this point, i'm just defending myself against your rude tendency to "put words in my mouth", and you continue to aggressively and antagonistically do so, and so i will respond again.

i didn't say you need to reply to my queries. i asked you a simple question that you did not respond directly to, so i asked the question multiple times. it is important to me, when querying somebody, that i get an answer to your question, and not to the question that the person "presumed" i asked. in your case, i had to ask 3 times to get a direct answer.

again you "presume" my feelings. i don't "not feel it's my job to explain myself". you haven't asked me any direct questions, but you have presumed and assumed and guessed and more, and then you've told me how irrelevant and ridiculous all those imaginary contributes are.

i'm not dodging anything. i haven't expressed an opinion in response to you, because i didn't have an opinion to respond to. you made a statement that i felt compelled to query you about, and to see what your response and position would be. i was curious about your thinking. i had no desire to argue, only to observe your behavior after some stimulus.

you should really reread this entire exchange between us. i think it's possible for you to see things differently. maybe you're so caught up in the idea of internet argumentation that you see that same intent in me? i'm not sure, and i won't pretend to know, but it's an interesting thought, and it would make sense given the propensity we all share to project our states of mind onto others.

i asked you a simple question that you did not respond directly to, so i asked the question multiple times.

I responded twice, both times very directly with crystal clear language. You just didn't like my response. My answers would have been enough for anyone asking an honest question but you're not being honest. You're playing standard, basic-level games of internet forum battle. You wanted me to answer in a very precise way so that you could play this game about two separate definitions/concepts of "intelligent design".

And you are dodging. Your post is precisely what I said would happen. You claim I didn't answer your question, you claim it's not your job to express your opinion, and you dodge sharing any opinion of your own. I should've also included the whole thing about "feelings" and "putting words in my mouth", since I knew you'd also act aggrieved and victimized because I'm disagreeing with you. All this is the usual dodge of someone who does not have anything meaningful to contribute to a conversation.

I responded twice

you responded 3 times, the third time you answered my question directly, the first two times you did not. that is recorded on this page. i didn't like or dislike your response (another example of you inventing a position for me). it's more accurate to say that i was not satisfied with your first 2 responses, because they were not direct responses to my question. you don't know whether or not your answers would have been 'good enough for anybody', and i don't think there's enough time for you to prove such a lofty claim. in fact, i think it's an unfalsifiable claim. i'm not playing "games of internet forum battle", and i didn't want you to answer in a very precise way so that i could play this game. i made a good point about intelligent design based on your assertion to "start small by believing in things that are evident". i am fine with letting this conversation go at any time, but you continue to bring in more and more wild accusations about my intentions, such as this concept of me playing games.

i am not dodging. you haven't asked me anything. you gave me permission to express my opinion, which wasn't something i had to express. i'll state again: i don't know what opinion you want me to express. i asked the question i wanted to ask, and i responded to your responses accordingly. you've "presumed" and "guessed" wrongly at my intentions (that is both admitted by you, and recognized by me), and not only do you maintain those incorrect assumptions, but you continue to expand them! i haven't acted aggrieved and victimized, this is another example of you misrepresenting my feelings and intentions. there is a multitude of examples of you doing this in this thread of our conversation. you've admitted to doing it--multiple times!

All this is the usual dodge of someone who does not have anything meaningful to contribute to a conversation.

i contributed something meaningful to the conversation, don't conflate your refusal to consider my contribution with an actual lack of contribution. rather than respond directly to my contribution, you "presumed" and "guessed" at my intentions, projected this "internet forum game playing" personality onto my character, and responded to me according to your imaginary conception of the quality of my responses.

you're 100% wrong about my intentions, and because of your refusal to recognize that you're working overtime to craft this narrative that justifies your antagonistic responses to me and masks the reality that you've been so consistently incorrect.

Let’s all hold hands now.

in conclusion: Fuck you op

Since we dont know what the universe really is. The universe must be far greater than our brains can currently comprehend. So why would there be a god? A god is an idea that is created from a human brain, which means we were able to come up with the idea, and this god is supposed to be responsible for the entire universe? No. This is why I think believers of god are rather stupid.

Non believers are stupid as well. Most of us are, cause we don't see the big picture. That is why I find religion bashers equally dumb to religious fanatics. They attack some facet of religion that is obviously manmade-up (for instance, a muslim recently told me how stupid he thinks buddists are 'cause they praise a man made image or statue (buddha). I told him it's a symbol, like many things in religion (written, drawn, whatever).

There is a god, but that statement is as void as saying there isn't a god, you will probably only learn it after you take your last breath.

p.s. with 'most of us' I consider myself included.

If you look on a global scale, clearly non believers are the less stupid people... Should tell you something

not really, what big picture? where?

jesus christ this retard is still on? only dre did hit his off switch .

according to the golden ratio and its significance it almost has to be true that some sort of intelligent creator designed and created our world. it cant get more precise and perfect as that. also the great pyramid of gizeh is build on this perfection called the golden ratio. the coordinates of the pyramides are exactly the same as the number for the speed of light. and they line up perfectly within the 3 stars of orions belt

speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s.
coordinates pyramide of gizeh: 29.9792458

too perfect to be a coincedence

also the pyramides were build way before the egyptians even existed and i also believe the pyramides contains a blueprint of where our world is build on.

the coordinates of the pyramides are exactly the same as the number for the speed of light

coordinates and speed of light in what units of measurement for each? base what numbers?

The speed of light in void is 299,792,458 metres per second while the latitude of the Great Pyramid of Giza is 29º58′45.03″ North. (I presume the longitude of 31º08′ is irrelevant to the discussion). If we convert that from degrees with minutes and seconds to degrees with decimals, we get a figure of 29.9791750. That is the latitude of the centre of the monument or the measure from the top point of it. If we use the numeric value of the speed of light figure by figure (29.9792458º) as the question proposes, then we get the coordinate 29º58′45.28″ that is located just 8 metres to the North (considering the centre of the pyramid as the reference) but this mark still falls inside the pyramid and the percentage of error is minimal.

Only when assuming a meter is one meter long, and a second is one second long, and that a circle (and therefore our coordinate system) has 360 so-called degrees as opposed to e.g. 2xpi radians. And only in WGS 84.

(I presume the longitude of 31º08′ is irrelevant to the discussion)

So what does it mean for your theory if I happen to find some semi-relevant landmark somewhere on longitude 29.9792458º, i.e. somewhere on this circle which goes around the entire planet? What would that prove?

Only when assuming a meter is one meter long, and a second is one second long, and that a circle (and therefore our coordinate system) has 360 so-called degrees as opposed to e.g. 2xpi radians. And only in WGS 84.

Exactly. What happens when you use the imperial system. SI units might be saner for human use, but they're not objectively "the right way to divide things".

the big bang is a theory. there are refutations of both popular science and research, observations, and models regarding the big bang theory (https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happene...067974049X), and there are alternate models and theories explaining cosmic observations that offer experimentally demonstrable solutions to many of the observations that proponents of the big bang theory say are evidence of the big bang, as well as to problems of the big bang theory (the necessity to invent conceptual states of reality that haven't been observed). the difference between these other theories and the big bang theory is that the big bang theory was popularized by the media for sensational effect.

i can't claim to have any idea of whether or not the big bang theory is a good approximation of some causal agent for the current state of our reality, but i can say that the ideas from plasma cosmology and what donald scott calls "the electric cosmos" are very compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYrgJrBFr0&a...f5KCfvRTDC

this is right afaik , but to quote some , 'whenever I try to debate the big bang with a cosmologist, I got my ass handed to me" . At the wiki page it lists some issues that have not been ironed out yet. However it is solid and not refuted.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-great-p...ght.t2154/

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-speed-of-lig...id-at-Giza

Yes Im sure the alien civilizations wanted to give us a clue we just had to come up with metric units to get it. :D :D :D :D

How can you live with this really practical worldview ? : D :D :D

what's your worldview? :)

This, doctors treating the symptomes again :

https://www.humanbioscience.org/2018/05/World...a.html?m=1

KappaRoss

Hello guy, the link you posted is broken. The link is not working. This is because of the "?m=1" at the end of the link. Change the link from https://www.humanbioscience.org/2018/05/World...a.html?m=1
to

https://www.humanbioscience.org/2018/05/World...ornea.html

This to improve the experience of users and to prevent them from landing on non existent pages
I hope this helps

why does the earth have to be round?

Can you make a proof?

http://www.grangevillehealing.com/blog/missin...-the-earth

http://user-images.strikinglycdn.com/res/hrsc...josz8j.jpg

so is he a flat or is he a round?

why bother you know, a monkey descendant can live anywhere

But a God said he a flat and not a round

ok

a man's erection prod a proof ney?

idk

Make aproof

"The all is mind."

Most pure ancient knowledge are the Hermetic Laws.

It went all downhill after...

I raise you