This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Show me the mechanism by which the Universe was created out of nothing .
Click to expand...

show me the mechanism that god used to create the universe from nothing.

I can explain the mechanism everything you see in the universe was formed, it all formed from the fusion of helium and hydrogen, which appears to have been created during the big bang, But before that no one knows, and you simply saying "therefore god" is not a legitimate answer.

The sun, the planets etc were not designed, they have come about simply by gravity acting on clouds of hydrogen and helium. If your looking at the solar system and thinking it needed a designed like a city does, your just wrong.
 
Value Collector;832563.[/QUOTE said:
"But before that no one knows"
Click to expand...

Good, I see we have agreement.

As to the rest of your post, if you think I believe that God sat on a cloud and said "today I'll create a planet", please give me credit for a little intelligence and cease the patronising piffle.
 
it's probably more useful to take the good lessons, the good morality from these good books and try to practice it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can learn good morals from the religious texts, you have to have good morals to start with, otherwise you can't distinguish which verses to listen to and which to ignore.

I mean you say take the good lessons, but only someone with pre existing good morals can tell those, and the books tend to muddy the waters, and make otherwise moral people make some crappy decisions, eg. discriminate against gays and women etc.
 
SirRumpole said:
"
But before that no one knows
Click to expand...
"


Good, I see we have agreement.

.
Click to expand...

So why invoke a god?, why not just be happy to say "I don't know, but perhaps one day we will find out"?


As to the rest of your post, if you think I believe that God sat on a cloud and said "today I'll create a planet", please give me credit for a little intelligence and cease the patronising piffle
Click to expand...

Well when you made the argument that because cities have designers, then nature must be designed, you did start to sound like the intelligent design guys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well when you made the argument that because cities have designers, then nature must be designed, you did start to sound like the intelligent design guys.
Click to expand...

You can lay down a set of basic laws, throw in a bit of randomness and see what happens. You don't have to personally design everything in the Universe.
 
SirRumpole said:
...if you think I believe that God sat on a cloud and said "today I'll create a planet", please give me credit for a little intelligence and cease the patronising piffle.
Click to expand...
+1

Unfortunately there are those that choose to cling tightly to derogatory assumptions about their religious opposition.

Such assumptions often arise pursuant to a personal agenda founded on avoidance of deep insecurities. Such individuals cling tightly to their chosen ideology (whether it be theistic, atheistic or other) and are reluctant to acknowledge any conflicting truth for the simple reason of unwillingness to embrace the fear that arises from confrontation with their personal issues. So it becomes just another crusade where every party likes to believe that the facts/truth/God/s is/are on their side and filters the evidence accordingly.
 
SirRumpole said:
... no evidence has been found that conclusively proves the non existence of a God, so the question is still open, as is my mind.
Click to expand...

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!
Give me strength!

It is not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, even though She does exist.
 
burglar said:
Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!
Give me strength!

It is not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, even though She does exist.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins tries pretty hard to "disprove" the existence of God, even if it is just by disparagement and insult.
 
burglar said:
It is not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, even though She does exist.
Click to expand...
+1
SirRumpole said:
Richard Dawkins tries pretty hard to "disprove" the existence of God, even if it is just by disparagement and insult.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he can hardly be considered anything more than a pseudo scientist for that very reason.

One true to the art of science needs to be willing to quarantine their personal philosophy whilst conducting scientific investigations.
 
If Jesus is the son of God and Jesus sacrificed his life in the name of God, why has God, if he/she/it exists, allowed other religions to develop which have created so much hate, pain, wars and blood shed?

If there is a God, why is there so much poverty in the world?

If there is a God, why can't there be peace and calm around the world?

If there is a God, why do we have so much sickness and diseases?

If there is a God, why is there so many different races, black, white, Caucasians, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Hispanic and so on?

I don't have the answers and I don't believe anyone else has either but I happy to listen.
 

Free will
 
noco said:
...
I don't have the answers and I don't believe anyone else has either but I happy to listen.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to have the answers either, but if one were to say to another something along the lines of:

"You are descended from God and as such you are a god"

what questions would then remain unanswered?
 
So why invoke a god?, why not just be happy to say "I don't know, but perhaps one day we will find out"?
Click to expand...

Because the simplest explanation for a creation is a creator.
 
SirRumpole said:
Because the simplest explanation for a creation is a creator.
Click to expand...

That is how I see it.

There are two alternatives.

1) There is a creator who made this.
2) The universe is self-existent.

There are only two options and neither should be the default position.


There does not appear any scientific evidence to support #2.

Given that there is no scientific evidence of life coming from non-life.
Given that there is no scientific evidence of something coming from nothing.
Given that mathematics says the likelihood (if even possible) is ridiculous.
Given the precision of universal laws.
Given the apparent design.

Why the heck would the default position be that this wasn't created?

What a completely unscientific (observable and repeatable experimentation) conclusion that is!
 
SirRumpole said:
Richard Dawkins tries pretty hard to "disprove" the existence of God, even if it is just by disparagement and insult.
Click to expand...

I think you will find richard dawkins is happy to admit that its impossible to disprove god. He is happy to try and clear up misconceptions that evolution deniers have, he is an evolutionary biologist after all.

disproving claims made by people that are anti evolution or disproving claims people make about a god is a lot different to trying to disprove god,
 
pavilion103 said:
Given that there is no scientific evidence of life coming from non-life.
Given that there is no scientific evidence of something coming from nothing.
Click to expand...

Well there goes the biblical account,

Because the biblical account relies on god creating life from non life and creating stuff from nothing.

200 years ago there was no scientific evidence that people could fly to the moon, but now there is, your simply trying to squeeze your god into the gaps of scientific understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...