Opinions on Life/Reality

[Naz]

A bee could not have created the Universe because it does not have the super natural properties or energy. There is fact.

A bee could have created the universe, it does have that type of powers, the human mind just doesn't have the abbilitiy to see it/understand it/acknowledge it

see my point :]

 

[Morrone]

Morrone, sorry for incorrectly spelling your name, but you just aren't making any sense anymore, and I refuse to argue with someone who can't understand what I'm trying to tell them. Especially when other people, like Hitokiri, plainly can. I'll only make a couple of obvious notes.

First off, saying somebody had to start moving everything is nothing new, because it is the same exact theory that somebody had to create everything. It doesn't sound smell or taste new so don't hide behind it.

Nextly, using "God exists" as evidence to prove that God exists just doesn't work. You can't say that those theories prove that God is the only reasonable explanation because, first off: 1.) The information in all of those articles would have to be certifiably correct, which none is (no references are given from what I saw), and 2.) the articles would actually have to prove something, which none do. They all just present theories and then tell the reader that those threories are correct. I have read them from an unbiased perspective and I should know.

Lastly, no matter how many times you tell yourself that you've "squashed me" that just wont make it true. Go ahead though, and tell everyone that you've beaten me, using evidence you don't have to prove the impossible.

Blind faith in science... blind faith in religion... what is the difference? It's all just a big pile of bull**** when you try to break it apart and make sense of it. No matter what you believe, if you trace it back far enough, there is no logical explanation for any of it. You can say God all you want but for those of us who don't believe in God or who question the origins of God it just doesn't make sense, and it never will without blind faith. Nobody has a "greater" blind faith than anybody else Morrone, but you can think so if it makes you feel better.

You didn't address the issue that those articles are religiously biased and failed to prove that either article explored every possible theory outside of that of one true Creator before coming to its final conclusion. You continually rely on your articles to prove the value and competance of your articles which is a vicious circle I don't see you coming out of any time soon.

If you get any ideas of your own, without relying on articles that haven't persuaded me of anything, and that scientifically or philosophically come to any conclusions that seperate themselves from the most basic and common place theory that there is a God, come on back and post about it. So far all I keep hearing from you is "There is a God, read my articles. My articles say it is so, and therefore it must be so. They are flawless." Sorry, it just doesn't work that way, Morrone.

Your ignorance is truly painful. If you can't acknowledge the fact I am not saying God exists then why should I acknowledge what I am trying to say? You can't seem to read at all. No matter how many times I say it you just ignore it like you ignored the correct spelling of my name. You aren't even worth debating with because you are terribly close minded and stubborn.

1. The theory that something moved everything is just further proof that there was a beginning. I pity your incompetence of analyzing simple information once more.

2. I never used "God exists" as proof that God exists. Failure to comprehend simple information is not my fault but yours and possibly your educators. I pity your incompetence of analyzing simple information once more.

3. You have read jack **** from an unbiased point of view. You have read them from a stubborn, closed minded point of view that wants to prove me wrong. Otherwise you would quit telling me that I am trying to prove that God exists and just realize that all I am saying is in chance and logic is simply in it's favor.

4. "Squashed you", not you directly but your atheist opinions. Remember when this thread started you thought there was a chance the Universe was infinite? After I sent many a bullet through your thick skull I finally got it through to you that mathematics and logic have already proved there was a beginning. I pity your incompetence of analyzing simple information once more.

5. What is the difference between blind faith in science and religion? The utter fact that science isn't suppose to be based on faith. Science based on faith IS religion. Your theist point of view is just as religious, no, more religios because of chance, then any religion in existence today.

6. Of course all media is biased. These articles are trying to prove God exists which is something every man knows is impossible, except for you of course because you think that's what I am trying to prove which is ridiculous. However these articles do have points which you don't seem to notice from your "unbiased" point of view that doesn't exist because you are biased.

"The third dichotomy (either the beginning was caused or the beginning was not caused) seems to follow common sense. Do things begin to exist without reason or cause? Is it really possible to suggest the universe arbitrarily began to exist without cause or reason? People who claim big bang cosmology rules in favor of atheism are making a very bold proclamation of faith because they are claiming something very unscientific and absurd. For to claim that the big bang supports atheism is the same as claiming that the universe began without a cause or reason. This is tantamount to saying the explanation for the universe is no explanation."

So atheists think this entire Universe and all of the life on this planet and most likely on other planets all came into existence by chance. That something so great popped out of a ball without reason or cause which this passage proves is quite UNLIKELY. Not that it can't be, IM NOT SAYING IT CANT ****ING BE, but that logic and sense points not to atheism.

7. Ideas of my own? I have proven chance is greater of the theist. YOU have the burden of proof. You are the scientist, the one that doesn't "Believe" in faith yet you have more faith than I in believeing in a creator. My idea is a Creator made this Universe and It did it with the Big Bang. The reasons for doing this WERE personal but as to why exactly it woul be impossible to understand because that would be suggesting that I understand something outside of this Universe, which isimpossible.

I do wish before you read you go through elementary school and learn how to read. It would be most helpful becaue perhaps you would finally realize after reading it many a time that I am not trying t prove God exists. If you perhaps could infact read you would realize that this entire time I have been trying to prove atheists have more faith in believing in chance, which is something atheists aren't suppose to have. Atheists believe that logic and science are on their side which is untrue. Science isn't on anyone's side but sense and logic are for the theists as is explained in these articles and with my own words.

If anyone else wants to do any more research on this subject, anyone but closed minded stubborn fools, I will recommend this last article which has many References and I have clipped parts of it out throughout this debate. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/newproofs.shtml?main

I'm not going to continue with this debate until Sonic Boyster gets his head out of the ground and realizes what I am talking about. An atheist with faith does not exist, therefore there are no true atheists, just a religion that thinks man rules the Universe.

 

[Morrone]

A bee could have created the universe, it does have that type of powers, the human mind just doesn't have the abbilitiy to see it/understand it/acknowledge it

see my point :]

Uh no not really because we have studied bees and understand them perfectly and not only is it lack of understanding you are suggesting but lack of physical properties that don't exist inside a bee. But is you are suggesting we both don't understand the bee and the bee is hiding infinite energy and physical properties then sure, yea, a bee could make the Universe.

EDIT: Sailor, Majin is right. The theory is called the "Big Crunch", and like the "Big Bang" theory it has not been unproven and much scientific fact defends it.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Would somebody please take some time out to summarize my posts so that Morrone can figure out what I was saying? I don't have the energy anymore.

I never said you were trying to say that the articles proved God existed. If you can ****ing pick that out of anything I have ever said to you I'll give you a cookie. I said you're biased and choose to believe God exists and therefor use the ****ing articles as ****ing evidence of God's ****ing existence. Stop reading into what I'm trying to say.

Furthermore calling me ignorant for not believing in something that cannot be proven is ridiculous. I read your articles and said my piece about them. Ignorant implies that I am uneducated in the subject which from my prior posts I plainly am not. Your articles are too biased and too short to show us anything of any value. A subject so massive could not be summarized in any of your 2-3 page articles.

 

[SailorAlea]

The forum is acting all weird lately. Posts disappearing or remaining invisible. Like my 'SuperBee' post seems to have gone, and it looks like Morrone double posted.. o_o

 

[Morrone]

LMAO.

1. Your a mod and flaming, you should know better.

2. You just said it again that I'm using the articles to prove God's existence. Your too much.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

I'm not flaming >.< what the heck.. I'm swearing. There is a difference.

And what the heck.. you keep reading into what I am saying.. here:

If I believe in God, and I want someone else to believe in God, I may use an article like that as evidence because it makes sense to me.

I acknowledge that you aren't trying to show us that the articles *definitely* *without a doubt* prove his existence, but you *are* using them to make us *think* that there *might* be a God which means you are using them as *evidence* that he exists.

 

[Morrone]

Lol your hopeless.

I'musing an article the prove that there is a possibility he exists and that he exists, theres a sdidference buddy. But I know you probably can't understand that like you can't understand any of the other things in this thread.

I keep reading into what you are saying? What am I suppose to not read what you are saying like you are doing to me?

The articles only prove that the atheists have a leap of faith greater than that of a theist and that atheists themselves are a religion to need the faith to believe that man rules the Universe.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

How does it prove that Morrone? And how is what I said any different from your second paragraph?

 

[Morrone]

Wow you really have no understanding at all.

This is how: The third dichotomy (either the beginning was caused or the beginning was not caused) seems to follow common sense. Do things begin to exist without reason or cause? Is it really possible to suggest the universe arbitrarily began to exist without cause or reason? People who claim big bang cosmology rules in favor of atheism are making a very bold proclamation of faith because they are claiming something very unscientific and absurd. For to claim that the big bang supports atheism is the same as claiming that the universe began without a cause or reason. This is tantamount to saying the explanation for the universe is no explanation.

And the thing that pushes atheism over the edge is that it is suppose to be based on logic and fact in which it has already proven that it's all just about probabality and segment above shows how absurd it is to suggest chance.

And my second paragraph isn't any different then what you said, I asked a question. You don't want me to read what you are saying like you aren't reading what I am saying?

 

[SailorAlea]

You know, you guys really should just get together on AIM, or something, and just duke it out. Because this thread isn't going anywhere.

*hide*

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

For the record: There is no such thing as a larger "leap of faith." Either you believe or you don't. Calling one larger than another is subjective and is just another way of manipulating what you are saying to give outsiders the impression that there is more logic in believing that a God exists outside of our plane of existence than that creation was just a random happenstance. Where you are religious, and therefore biased towards a great creator, you will interpret the articles you read in a different way than I, an agnostic, will interpret the same articles. You saying my interpretation is flawed does not make it so. That is your subjective analyzation of how I read the articles and doesn't stand up to criticism because both of our interpretations are theoretically correct. You admit time and time again that you cannot prove God exists, but when I mention something that did not make sense to me in an article, or explain that the article cannot prove to me that God exists, you insult me and tell me that I can't read. Pick and choose: Are you trying to convince us all that God exists using these articles, or are you pretending to play an unbiased role and show us both sides of the argument?

 

[Hitokiri]

Heyooo.

Ok Morrone, so you're saying there's a higher probobility that a creator caused the beginning of the universe than the universe started itself, because while both are illogical the universe acting on it's own is more improboble. Here's what I've been trying to say:

It's theorized that the universe in its earliest state had no rules. The reason you say that a creator is more likely to have come along is because the creator exists on a plane which has no bounds, or at least follows different ones. However if the universe, then, were to have no laws (or laws equal to that of the creator's) then I don't see why the universe creating itself is less likely than a creator coming in, as then they would theoretically follow the same rules.

Hmm... this is coming out really garbled -_-

But anyway, the same disproof you use for the universe having no way to start itself can be used on the creator. Ah, but it can't, because the creator is outside the rules you say? But I point again to the theory that the universe followed no rules in the beginning (or the same hypothetical rules at least, which you would give to a creator.) In other words, back then, the universe had the same hypothetical abilities as a creator entity would. Thus I feel to see either idea being more proboble than the other.

Unless of course I missed out on some science (which is likely), and they found that the universe has always had the same rules, even at the very beginning... I think I'm making sense >_>

 

[majin goketa]

Unless of course I missed out on some science (which is likely), and they found that the universe has always had the same rules, even at the very beginning... I think I'm making sense >_>

No, you're right, according to modern thinking the Universe started with the rules of the Universe it was spawned out of and then altered to it's current rules. It is beleived that our universe is just a subset of laws of physics of another Universe.
In other words our Universe is just a special enviroment in another larger universe.

 

[Morrone]

10 characters

For the record: There is no such thing as a larger "leap of faith." Either you believe or you don't. Calling one larger than another is subjective and is just another way of manipulating what you are saying to give outsiders the impression that there is more logic in believing that a God exists outside of our plane of existence than that creation was just a random happenstance.

Ok say there odds are 60/40 of the Yankees beating the Mets. Would it not take a greater leap of faith to believe the Mets would beat the Yankees?

Where you are religious, and therefore biased towards a great creator, you will interpret the articles you read in a different way than I, an agnostic, will interpret the same articles. You saying my interpretation is flawed does not make it so. That is your subjective analyzation of how I read the articles and doesn't stand up to criticism because both of our interpretations are theoretically correct. You admit time and time again that you cannot prove God exists, but when I mention something that did not make sense to me in an article, or explain that the article cannot prove to me that God exists, you insult me and tell me that I can't read.

The articles are trying to prce that God exists but that is not what I am talking about. What I have been conversing about this entire time is that the atheist takes at the very least an equally large leap of faith as the theist. To say the beginning is chance is to say there is no cause which is unlikely concidering the circumstances of the Universe we inhabit. Yes, you can disagree, just like you can disagree that the Yankees are going to beat the Mets but chance and logic wont change. I'm only telling you that you can't read is because yu are implying it with your insufficient and off topic responses.

Pick and choose: Are you trying to convince us all that God exists using these articles, or are you pretending to play an unbiased role and show us both sides of the argument?

This is what I mean by not reading. I have said multiple times that I am not trying to convince anyone that God exists using anything. We have agreed there is a beginning. We have agreed that there are two choices: chance and cause. I have simply deduced that probablity and logic are in favor of cause, not chance.

The articles were never meant to prove anything. When I posted them I said "this is something you might find interesting".

 

[Morrone]

10 characters

Heyooo.

Ok Morrone, so you're saying there's a higher probobility that a creator caused the beginning of the universe than the universe started itself, because while both are illogical the universe acting on it's own is more improboble. Here's what I've been trying to say:

It's theorized that the universe in its earliest state had no rules. The reason you say that a creator is more likely to have come along is because the creator exists on a plane which has no bounds, or at least follows different ones. However if the universe, then, were to have no laws (or laws equal to that of the creator's) then I don't see why the universe creating itself is less likely than a creator coming in, as then they would theoretically follow the same rules.

Hmm... this is coming out really garbled -_-

But anyway, the same disproof you use for the universe having no way to start itself can be used on the creator.

I never said the Universe had no way in starting itself ONCE, but it is proven that it can't infinitely be expanding and contracting because it doesn't have the critical requirements.

Ah, but it can't, because the creator is outside the rules you say? But I point again to the theory that the universe followed no rules in the beginning (or the same hypothetical rules at least, which you would give to a creator.) In other words, back then, the universe had the same hypothetical abilities as a creator entity would. Thus I feel to see either idea being more proboble than the other.

The probability comes into play when you concider cause. Random chance roll of the dice that hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of trillions of zillions of equations were performed perfectly for the Universe to be created and life not only being able to exist inside it but to survivor inside it.

Unless of course I missed out on some science (which is likely), and they found that the universe has always had the same rules, even at the very beginning... I think I'm making sense >_>

This Universe was infinite at the beginning and it is said that the theory of general relativity did not apply to it or that the theory of relativley was incomplete. So, yes, your science is not incorrect.

 

[majin goketa]

Morrone's above post contains what I beleive is the biggest proof for God. There are trillions of physical law combinations that a Universe could have but only a handful are suitable for life. Our laws of physics are so perfectly balanced that it is very likely that they were designed. There are hundreds of values and equations, that even if they were slightly different we could not exist.
Another thing is that if the bible's letters written in hebrew, is folded into a cube with each book a cube in side another book, it spells out future events to a good deal of accuarcy. Thats pretty odd, I think.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Where is our evidence that human beings and life itself wasn't just an act of chance? It's easy to say "Ah, we're human! We're alive! We must be meant to be!" Well that's obviously true if we're alive right now, but maybe it was just a freak happenstance. Maybe it was chance, and some freak laws of physics that brought us into existence. Maybe there is nothing special about human beings, or about life at all, aside from how improbable it was at one point in time. Maybe it is just a big overly complex accident. Nobody has said that there was no chance at all that life could have been formed by the universe born out of chaos. Even if there was only a .0000000000000000000000000000001% chance, that is still a chance, and perhaps we are the living proof that those steep odds pulled through in our favour.

For some people it is easier to believe that God created everything because it gives them closure as to what really happened. That's a leap of faith I'm just not ready to take yet. I'm not willing to just accept that everything happened out of chance either, though. I don't believe that you can quantify the likelyhood that there is one true creator of the universe or the chance that we just happen to exist. It is your biased interpretation of those articles that allows them to lead you to believe that there is a far greater likelyhood of God existing than not. It is my indifference that has kept me from being completely swayed on the issue in favour of God, as I don't believe that any matter of scientific or religous studies can give us an answer for what really happened. Maybe we'll find out after we die. Maybe we are biologically programmed to figure it out once we successfully reach the age of 150 which we may reach relatively soon with the assistance of new scientific research and medical care over the next few hundred years. I don't know. What I do know is that those articles appeal to those who are already on the edge of believing in God or those who already do. I'm completely indifferent, and while I can see what they are trying to argue, I just don't see nearly enough evidence to support anything so drastic as a creator who, for all intensive purpouses of discussion, simply does not exist in this universe, and therefore is not subject to any rules of logic or basic human reasoning.

 

[Synth]

all i got to say is that you should practice tai chi till you see visible red(bad) and blue(good) energy with the lights out and then tell me about reality.

i know Cuc can level with me on some of this.

 

[Evgenij]

I belive that our lives are Iternal. When we die we simply begin a new live. You won't remember anything from the last life once you have been reborn, unless you have some special training. I belive that everybody can remember all experiences from all lives that they have lived in this world if they realy tried.

I didn't make this opinion out of air. It is from Indian , Tibet theory of Reincarnation . There are a lot books writen about this which had a lot of training manuals of how for expample to do Astral projection and such things. Anyway this is my opinion on reality (and it may sound stupid for most of you)

P.S. sory for bad English I don't know it perfectly.