Wait... So most scientists believe in God?

[DonDadda59]

NOBODY RE[COLOR="Black"]SPOND TO THIS PO[/COLOR]ST SO HELP ME GOD

[Is He Ill]

They can't refute my assertions but belittle my character with junk one lined remarks.

Your assertions are meaningless.

[RidonKs]

and his character's just so goddamn easy to belittle

[LBJMVP]

cause scientist study the universe and all kinds of matter throughout it and see how complex it is.


they know that things don't just form that way out of luck... it just so happens that every thing formed in the perfect way possible to support a whole universe?


some may not believe in the same god religions do, but a lot agree their is a higher power.

[miller-time]

i love the line from the article "They then boast that scientific findings lend weight to atheism (whatever that means)."

haha, whatever that means? they made up the claim then say "whatever that means." what a ridiculous article. seriously, some of the stuff bladders finds is amazing trivial or awful.

[Bladers]

i love the line from the article "They then boast that scientific findings lend weight to atheism (whatever that means)."

haha, whatever that means? they made up the claim then say "whatever that means." what a ridiculous article. seriously, some of the stuff bladders finds is amazing trivial or awful.

Your line of thinking is getting old and lame.

It was funny 2 years ago. But now it reeks of gross ignorance.

The entire premise of atheism and guys like richard dawkins and his minions is to spoon feed us that science is in opposition to the idea of a creator of any sort.

[Randy]

[miller-time]

Your line of thinking is getting old and lame.

It was funny 2 years ago. But now it reeks of gross ignorance.

The entire premise of atheism and guys like richard dawkins and his minions is to spoon feed us that science is in opposition to the idea of a creator of any sort.

how dare you insult richard dawkins. he is the truth and the way.

[-p.tiddy-]

cause scientist study the universe and all kinds of matter throughout it and see how complex it is.


they know that things don't just form that way out of luck... it just so happens that every thing formed in the perfect way possible to support a whole universe?


some may not believe in the same god religions do, but a lot agree their is a higher power.

yes, I agree with this...it is too much of a coincidence for me as well as them

[-p.tiddy-]

i love the line from the article "They then boast that scientific findings lend weight to atheism (whatever that means)."

haha, whatever that means? they made up the claim then say "whatever that means." what a ridiculous article. seriously, some of the stuff bladders finds is amazing trivial or awful.

If the survey is real and not made up then that is interesting to me...

[-p.tiddy-]

Coincidence...sometimes I feel like the only person who gets that even the most minute of odds given an infinite amount of chances to occur will eventually occur. It's just math.

well, if there are an infinite amount of universes out there I could see that...but I only know of this one

like the article claims though, most scientists don't feel that it is "just math"

[RidonKs]

the only point that needs to be made here is this:

even if we agree that _______ had to have _______'ed for the universe to have begun, as a consequence of answering the something-from-nothing argument... you're still speculating out your ass as soon as you try to fill in either of those blanks. nobody in the world has any more honest evidence to fill in those two blanks than anybody else because this shit is unanswerable. the noun is unknown and the verb is unknown.

so i ask: wtf is the point of having the conversation? if you're only trying to prove without a measure of doubt that something began everything, well i'm sure most people will either grant you that premise or simply ignore you. probably why so many 'scientists' call themselves 'theists', if that's even true, my quotations are there for a reason. but coming to define that ______ is when the bs trigger of any scientist worth their salt, with even a semblance of understanding regarding their method, will go off.

most theist vs atheist debates do not revolve around 'something from nothing'. they debate specific details that are offered up by either side, grounded in nothing more than speculation.



well shit i think i just added fuel to a fire i already tried to put out

[-p.tiddy-]

the only point that needs to be made here is this:

even if we agree that _______ had to have _______'ed for the universe to have begun, as a consequence of answering the something-from-nothing argument... you're still speculating out your ass as soon as you try to fill in either of those blanks. nobody in the world has any more honest evidence to fill in those two blanks than anybody else because this shit is unanswerable. the noun is unknown and the verb is unknown.

so i ask: [COLOR="Red"]wtf is the point of having the conversation?[/COLOR] if you're only trying to prove without a measure of doubt that something began everything, well i'm sure most people will either grant you that premise or simply ignore you. probably why so many 'scientists' call themselves 'theists', if that's even true, my quotations are there for a reason. but coming to define that ______ is when the bs trigger of any scientist worth their salt, with even a semblance of understanding regarding their method, will go off.

it is the ulitimate question...and it will likely never be answered...

you can't blame humans for trying discuss "wow, how the hell do I exist?"

it would be strange if we weren't in a constant quest to answer that...

[COLOR="Red"]most theist vs atheist debates do not revolve around 'something from nothing'.[/COLOR] they debate specific details that are offered up by either side, grounded in nothing more than speculation.

you're right, most are just athiests poking fun at the Bible...

well shit i think i just added fuel to a fire i already tried to put out

[-p.tiddy-]

Even if the universe is finite as some people assert, it is still INCOMPREHENSIBLY GIGANTIC. An event with tiny, tiny, MINUSCULE odds given a gigantic, potentially infinite window to occur is probably going to occur at some point. Imagine a die with a trillion sides. What are the odds that it will land on any specific side? Well, one in a trillion I suppose. But if you have an infinite amount of rolls over and an infinite amount of time, it's probably eventually going to land on that side.

it doesn't matter how big it is if there is only one...the same laws apply to the entire thing...

what a coincidence that we have:

-light
-time
-gravity (wow, thank goodness for that one)
-3 dimensions
-etc

how lucky us this wasn't a 2 dimensional universe without light and gravity, stuck in time...

anyway, to me this reaks of design, but I know I will never convince anyone

[RidonKs]

it is the ulitimate question...and it will likely never be answered...

you can't blame humans for trying discuss "wow, how the hell do I exist?"

it would be strange if we weren't in a constant quest to answer that...

its the jump from "how do i exist?" to "how does everything exist?" that i don't understand

why make that jump? i get why human beings would be curious about the origins of the universe, but that has little to do with existential angst. we have firm scientific grounding for why we, as in each individual human, exists... how we came to be... the process that lead to our species... recorded history... family trees... etc, etc, etc.

why do i have to be able to trace my origins back 13.5 billion years ago in order to understand where i came from? it just seems strange when even digesting that sort of time frame accurately is a near impossibility for a human being with an ~85 year lifespan



its an understandable yet nevertheless confounding obsession that we have with something common sense should tell us straight up is unanswerable