I dont know whos your god

[Gohan]

Stop calling these flawed ass nba players gods. How weak do you think god is? He could score 150 points ppg per night on 100% shooting if he wanted too and would be a lockdown defender. Stop playing with god like that, it’s not right

[RRR3]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.

[nayte]

You peaked at cell. You've been carried the rest of your life. You have a God.:lol

[Gohan]

You peaked at cell. You've been carried the rest of your life. You have a God.:lol

Yea but lets be real.. cell is the only thing you need on your resume.

[nayte]

No way. Even kefla will shit on cell. Pick your game up mate

[Gohan]

Id totally smash kefla if i was still 11

[DoctorP]

:lol

Gods probably busy laughing at our Minecraft existence.

[MaxPlayer]

muh gawd

[Joey Turnbuckle]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.

Existence is pain.

[ArbitraryWater]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.

if existence is pain its easy to believe god doesnt exist

[DoctorP]

Existence is sex.

[Axe]

Plot twist: the whole world is beyond f*cking pointless

:facepalm

[MrFonzworth]

Existence is pain.

Cope fatass.

[AussieSteve]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.

The weight of evidence strongly suggests some kind of intelligent creative force behind the universe. You can choose not to acknowledge this, but it's a choice.

In fact atheism is perhaps the least defensible theology when it comes to the fundamental questions of reality.

[k0kakw0rld]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.
So planets were created by HUMANS?

You are a ****in idiot.

[bladefd]

Michael Jordan is a baseball God. Period.

[LLL3]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.

I agree. God would never curse anyone with this hair

https://i.ibb.co/52Y1LN1/77-B16-AB3-50-E6-4634-9430-4-D9561808-C0-A.jpg

[Axe]

I agree. God would never curse anyone with this hair

https://i.ibb.co/52Y1LN1/77-B16-AB3-50-E6-4634-9430-4-D9561808-C0-A.jpg
:eek:

[Spurs m8]

Yep true.

No nba player is God and never has been.

Jordan was black Jesus...

Apart from that, I guess the next highest is a self proclaimed king that's always giving up his castle to the enemy and running to another castle

[ShawkFactory]

So planets were created by HUMANS?

You are a ****in idiot.

Lol what? :lol

[Chick Stern]

The weight of evidence strongly suggests some kind of intelligent creative force behind the universe. You can choose not to acknowledge this, but it's a choice.

In fact atheism is perhaps the least defensible theology when it comes to the fundamental questions of reality.
There is zero evidence that supports this flawed contention.
Additionally, if this contention held weight, then you must ask what kind of intelligent creative force is behind the intelligent creative force?

[AussieSteve]

There is zero evidence that supports this flawed contention.
Additionally, if this contention held weight, then you must ask what kind of intelligent creative force is behind the intelligent creative force?

That's a logical fallacy, which assumes the intelligent creative force is constrained by the same laws of physics as its creation. Ie everything that is had a beginning and everything that had a beginning had a cause.

The universe isn't just constrained by these laws. These laws are part of the fabric of the universe. So anything that exists outside the universe is not constrained by the same laws.

For example, time began at the big bang. This is the standard cosmological understanding of space-time. So, if something exists outside the universe, not only did it not necessarily have a cause, it can't have had a cause. It must be eternal because time didn't exist and so causality didn't exist.

[DoctorP]

imagine being deluded enough to think you know whether there is a god or not :lol

[AussieSteve]

imagine being deluded enough to think you know whether there is a god or not :lol

There's more than enough evidence available to come to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level of knowledge.

Also claiming that we cannot know whether there is a god or not is a self refuting statement, because it professes to know something about the god we can't know anything about. Ie whether or not the god would make itself knowable.

[DoctorP]

There's more than enough evidence available to come to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level of knowledge.

Also claiming that we cannot know whether there is a god or not is a self refuting statement, because it professes to know something about the god we can't know anything about. Ie whether or not the god would make itself knowable.

Sure. Okay, let's see your evidence.

[outofstomach]

There is zero evidence that supports this flawed contention.
Additionally, if this contention held weight, then you must ask what kind of intelligent creative force is behind the intelligent creative force?

you’re talking about an infinite regress and the same exact concept can apply to anyone who ascribes to the Big Bang theory as well.. atheists still can’t even answer what came before the Big Bang, or even explain the nature of consciousness or life itself through purely materialistic terms, that probably means there’s something more to life than just your senses

you can remain ignorant and dogmatic in science though and ignore the world around you

[AussieSteve]

Sure. Okay, let's see your evidence.

We all have the same set of facts. We just choose to interpret them differently, based on our world view. The question you need to ask yourself is: if you were presented with "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence, would you believe it? If not, then your lack of belief is not evidence or logic based, but volitional.

I'll offer example. The most obvious one. We know beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning. Do you believe that a) it began without a cause? b) it is somehow self causing? c) an unobservable multi-verse exists that gives rise to universes like ours, through an undiscoverable mechanism? or d) a creator/god was the cause? The first 2 are easily refutable, the third requires further explanation and is untestable, even in principle. The forth requires no further explanation. It is an explanation. And it is testable in principle; if not experimentally, certainly by logical examination.

There are plenty more examples like this. The existence and complexity of life. The existence of the human mind (as opposed to just the brain). Morality. The laws of logic. In fact the existence of logic itself. I could go on... You can pose hypotheticals about all of these and the Occam's Razor answer in each case is God. You invariably violate logic and/or observation in attempting to provide non-theistic explanations for any of these.

Do yourself a favour, sallow your pride and be open to the answers that arise naturally from these questions, rather than being closed minded to them.

[Chick Stern]

That's a logical fallacy, which assumes the intelligent creative force is constrained by the same laws of physics as its creation. Ie everything that is had a beginning and everything that had a beginning had a cause.

The universe isn't just constrained by these laws. These laws are part of the fabric of the universe. So anything that exists outside the universe is not constrained by the same laws.

For example, time began at the big bang. This is the standard cosmological understanding of space-time. So, if something exists outside the universe, not only did it not necessarily have a cause, it can't have had a cause. It must be eternal because time didn't exist and so causality didn't exist.
That's a logical fallacy, you assume the same laws of physics were in place during the formation of the universe as they are now. There is no evidence of this. You don’t know, and I don’t know.
Our knowledge of the universe is in the infancy stage at this time. Rudimentary at best. As is our knowledge of quantum mechanics and forces at the sub atomic level.
We only discovered that there were other galaxies less than 100 years ago.
To make any absolute claims about the origin of the universe is inane. To claim that ancient, desert dwelling nomads had it figured out three millenniums is just silly.

[AussieSteve]

It's ironic, because mankind's refusal to acknowledge the enormous weight of (often blindingly obvious) evidence for God is actually preempted by God, according to the three major theistic religions of the world.

[Chick Stern]

It's ironic, because mankind's refusal to acknowledge the enormous weight of (often blindingly obvious) evidence for God is actually preempted by God, according to the three major theistic religions of the world.
He asked you for evidence, and you presented none. You stated “the universe had a beginning”. After that, you go into guessing.
It’s the equivalent of ‘lightning is evidence of Zeus’ anger’. It is the exact same level of evidence.
You might as well just say
https://blog.elogia.net/hs-fs/hubfs/Shia%20Labeouf%20Magic%20GIF-source.gif?width=825&height=756&name=Shia%20Labeouf%20Magic%20GIF-source.gif

[AussieSteve]

That's a logical fallacy, you assume the same laws of physics were in place during the formation of the universe as they are now. There is no evidence of this. You don’t know, and I don’t know.
Our knowledge of the universe is in the infancy stage at this time. Rudimentary at best. As is our knowledge of quantum mechanics and forces as the sub atomic level.
We only discovered that there were other galaxies less than 100 years ago.
To make any absolute claims about the origin of the universe is inane. To claim that ancient, desert dwelling nomads had it figured out three millenniums is just silly.

But you are the one making absolute claims as well. That there is no God. Are you being inane?

And, come on... there is no evidence for what I'm saying? What you are saying is that you believe some as yet undiscovered physics will show that causality can be broken under certain circumstances? So, for example, a universe may be able to come into existence without a cause? This is in violation of observable nature. Sounds like something "super natural" may be at play.

[AussieSteve]

He asked you for evidence, and you presented none. You stated “the universe had a beginning”. After that, you go into guessing.
It’s the equivalent of ‘lightning is evidence of Zeus’ anger’. It is the exact same level of evidence.
You might as well just say
https://blog.elogia.net/hs-fs/hubfs/Shia%20Labeouf%20Magic%20GIF-source.gif?width=825&height=756&name=Shia%20Labeouf%20Magic%20GIF-source.gif

You must of missed it. I'll be more specific. The evidence is the long list of observations indicating that the Universe had a beginning.

[RRR3]

He asked you for evidence, and you presented none. You stated “the universe had a beginning”. After that, you go into guessing.
It’s the equivalent of ‘lightning is evidence of Zeus’ anger’. It is the exact same level of evidence.
You might as well just say
https://blog.elogia.net/hs-fs/hubfs/Shia%20Labeouf%20Magic%20GIF-source.gif?width=825&height=756&name=Shia%20Labeouf%20Magic%20GIF-source.gif
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Chick Stern]

But you are the one making absolute claims as well. That there is no God. Are you being inane?

And, come on... there is no evidence for what I'm saying? What you are saying is that you believe some as yet undiscovered physics will show that causality can be broken under certain circumstances? So, for example, a universe may be able to come into existence without a cause? This is in violation of observable nature. Sounds like something "super natural" may be at play.
Please provide a link to the quote where I stated this.

You were asked to provide evidence. You did not.

As far as “observable nature”, we already have evidence that at the quantum level, things behave differently. Real, tangible evidence. Not magic.
A couple of starters:
https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

There are more detailed explanations, but these are a good start.
and as I stated, our knowledge level is basic at this stage. Tiny stepping, toddler stage.

[DoctorP]

We all have the same set of facts.(wrong, my facts may not be consistent with yours, so thats an absolute Id disagree with.) We just choose to interpret them differently, based on our world view.( sure, thats called perspective) The question you need to ask yourself is: if you were presented with "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence, would you believe it? If not, then your lack of belief is not evidence or logic based, but volitional. (sure, okay)

I'll offer example. The most obvious one. We know beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning.( no, we don't. We are not even sure time existed before the big bang) Do you believe that a) it began without a cause? (i dont know) b) it is somehow self causing? ( i dont know) c) an unobservable multi-verse exists that gives rise to universes like ours, through an undiscoverable mechanism? (theres some evidence of that possibility that is inconclusive) or d) a creator/god was the cause? (I don't know.) The first 2 are easily refutable, the third requires further explanation and is untestable, even in principle. The forth requires no further explanation. It is an explanation. And it is testable in principle; if not experimentally, certainly by logical examination. (okay, sure)

There are plenty more examples like this. The existence and complexity of life. The existence of the human mind (as opposed to just the brain). Morality. The laws of logic. In fact the existence of logic itself. I could go on... You can pose hypotheticals about all of these and the Occam's Razor answer in each case is God (based on what?). You invariably violate logic and/or observation in attempting to provide non-theistic explanations for any of these. (why?)

Do yourself a favour, sallow your pride and be open to the answers that arise naturally from these questions, rather than being closed minded to them. (sure)

That was quite a rant that went nowhere. :lol

I will say that I know that there is a theory that the universe has an age but is that theoretical or factual at this point? Can you prove it's factualness?

[kennygriffin]

God doesn’t exist. Cope.

atheism is a form of blind faith and a religion in itself

you're not very intelligent

agnostics see you and hardcore Muslims as basically the same kind of inbred retards

[DoctorP]

What if we were in a simulation driven by incomprehensible forces in a 4th dimension?

What if we were metaphorical mouses on wheels, our decisions influencing a larger body only seen in the 4th dimension?

The possibilities are limitless. We have proof of little, only faith that we are connected to a grander mechanism / consciousness.

[DoctorP]

Also, quantum physics seems to have ended up with the same questions we have always had. Proving nothing.

[DoctorP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKnpPCQyUec

[AussieSteve]

That was quite a rant that went nowhere. :lol

I will say that I know that there is a theory that the universe has an age but is that theoretical or factual at this point? Can you prove it's factualness?

Facts are facts. If your facts and my facts differ, at least one of us doesn't have facts.

We are sure that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Sure to the extent that we can be sure.

The "evidence" for a multiverse is theoretical physicists with internally consistent mathematical models. Nothing based on observation or physical reality. These models are typically created for the specific purpose of trying to avoid the universe having an absolute beginning, due to the obvious implications. In the mid 20th century, physicists threw their toys around for decades at the idea of the universe having a beginning, because of these implications. Until the evidence got too great to avoid. Now many of them are scrambling.

Occam's Razor favors the explanation that has the greatest explanatory power and/or invokes the fewest hypothesises. Try and explain the origin of multicellular life and the sexual reproduction by which it propagates, from inanimate matter, by natural means, without invoking dozens of unverifiable hypotheses that are actually at odds with observation. You can't. People have been trying for the best part of a century and the truth is that we are getting further from having a natural explanation, not closer (That's not hyperbole).

There's a double standard at play here. People will accept an explanation, no matter how ludicrous, if it sits comfortably with them. But they demand unreasonable levels of evidence for explanations that don't. This is true in many areas of our life, but it's most prominent in matters of religion... and in matters of one's favourite basketball player :oldlol:

[DoctorP]

Facts are facts. If your facts and my facts differ, at least one of us doesn't have facts. (True)

We are sure that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Sure to the extent that we can be sure. (Theoretical)

The "evidence" for a multiverse is theoretical physicists with internally consistent mathematical models. Nothing based on observation or physical reality. These models are typically created for the specific purpose of trying to avoid the universe having an absolute beginning, due to the obvious implications. In the mid 20th century, physicists threw their toys around for decades at the idea of the universe having a beginning, because of these implications. Until the evidence got too great to avoid. Now many of them are scrambling. (Okay)

Occam's Razor favors the explanation that has the greatest explanatory power and/or invokes the fewest hypothesises. Try and explain the origin of multicellular life and the sexual reproduction by which it propagates, from inanimate matter, by natural means, without invoking dozens of unverifiable hypotheses that are actually at odds with observation. You can't. People have been trying for the best part of a century and the truth is that we are getting further from having a natural explanation, not closer (That's not hyperbole). (Still theoretical)

There's a double standard at play here. People will accept an explanation, no matter how ludicrous, if it sits comfortably with them. But they demand unreasonable levels of evidence for explanations that don't. This is true in many areas of our life, but it's most prominent in matters of religion... and in matters of one's favourite basketball player :oldlol:
(another absolute that is at best an opinion)



Thanks for your thoughts.

[SATAN]

Facts are facts. If your facts and my facts differ, at least one of us doesn't have facts.

We are sure that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Sure to the extent that we can be sure.

The "evidence" for a multiverse is theoretical physicists with internally consistent mathematical models. Nothing based on observation or physical reality. These models are typically created for the specific purpose of trying to avoid the universe having an absolute beginning, due to the obvious implications. In the mid 20th century, physicists threw their toys around for decades at the idea of the universe having a beginning, because of these implications. Until the evidence got too great to avoid. Now many of them are scrambling.

Occam's Razor favors the explanation that has the greatest explanatory power and/or invokes the fewest hypothesises. Try and explain the origin of multicellular life and the sexual reproduction by which it propagates, from inanimate matter, by natural means, without invoking dozens of unverifiable hypotheses that are actually at odds with observation. You can't. People have been trying for the best part of a century and the truth is that we are getting further from having a natural explanation, not closer (That's not hyperbole).

There's a double standard at play here. People will accept an explanation, no matter how ludicrous, if it sits comfortably with them. But they demand unreasonable levels of evidence for explanations that don't. This is true in many areas of our life, but it's most prominent in matters of religion... and in matters of one's favourite basketball player :oldlol:

https://media.giphy.com/media/RBeddeaQ5Xo0E/giphy.gif

[Axe]

Some believe that donald trump is their god. I laughed.

[Gohan]

Some believe that donald trump is their god. I laughed.

:oldlol:
If trump is your god then your god has failed miserably.

[Chick Stern]

:oldlol:
If trump is your god then your god has failed miserably.
and wears a diaper

[Chick Stern]

Facts are facts. If your facts and my facts differ, at least one of us doesn't have facts.

We are sure that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Sure to the extent that we can be sure.

The "evidence" for a multiverse is theoretical physicists with internally consistent mathematical models. Nothing based on observation or physical reality. These models are typically created for the specific purpose of trying to avoid the universe having an absolute beginning, due to the obvious implications. In the mid 20th century, physicists threw their toys around for decades at the idea of the universe having a beginning, because of these implications. Until the evidence got too great to avoid. Now many of them are scrambling.

Occam's Razor favors the explanation that has the greatest explanatory power and/or invokes the fewest hypothesises. Try and explain the origin of multicellular life and the sexual reproduction by which it propagates, from inanimate matter, by natural means, without invoking dozens of unverifiable hypotheses that are actually at odds with observation. You can't. People have been trying for the best part of a century and the truth is that we are getting further from having a natural explanation, not closer (That's not hyperbole).

There's a double standard at play here. People will accept an explanation, no matter how ludicrous, if it sits comfortably with them. But they demand unreasonable levels of evidence for explanations that don't. This is true in many areas of our life, but it's most prominent in matters of religion... and in matters of one's favourite basketball player :oldlol:


https://media.giphy.com/media/RBeddeaQ5Xo0E/giphy.gif
This is one of my favorite ones.
Discuss the beginnings of the universe, and then suddenly, it is about he origins of life. Two separate things that are only common in that the jury is still out.

Reality is, we are not sure that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. We have no evidence one way or the other.
We also are not sure what happens to the matter that enters a black hole, and what dark matter/energy is.
Approximately 85% of the matter is dark, so it is a pretty big deal. And there is real evidence to support this.
It is a wild and wiggly world out there, and there is so much more to learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwH8Qij0JY