i think atheism is bad, in it's purest form.
you're still missing my point. the original was that atheism doesn't drive bad behavior
Quote from: dahangyou're still missing my point. the original was that atheism doesn't drive bad behavior many factors drive bad behavior. atheism implies nothing happens after you die - therefore there is no consequence to your actions after death. can you really say lack of consequence isn't a motivator for bad behavior? lack of consequence can help compel someone to commit murder - a prime example is jerffery dahlmer. that smells like atheism drives bad behavior to me. atheism may not be a primary contributing factor to bad behavior, but you can see it can compel someone to do bad things.
Quote from: dahangnevermind, i forgot that your definition of god was 'what we can't understand = god'. we don't understand god for the same reason we don't understand fairies and leprechauns.you could be right. however until science shows us an explantion for why things are they way they are, and how it happened, it's reasonable to think god is in a different realm than fairies or leprechauns.
nevermind, i forgot that your definition of god was 'what we can't understand = god'. we don't understand god for the same reason we don't understand fairies and leprechauns.
i dont think god is literally speaking to anyone.
i was saying he didn't mean what he said literally
science has explanations for why things are. the only thing science hasn't really entered is "why is there something rather than nothing?". to say a highly complex intelligence created this only shifts the question as to "why is there a highly complex intelligence within this nothingness?". it's a non-answer.
i was picked of millions of sperm to be 'the one'.
Revelation 13 16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.Well the Beast is already here. It
as i've already said, both simple and complex beginnings are difficult to accept. however, complex beginnings does exactly what the title suggests: makes it more complex. if you have trouble explaining how matter in some form could have just 'always been there', just think how intellectually dissatisfying it is to say 'a highly complex all powerful intelligence has always been there'. the latter increases chance into uncharted territory.
Well the Beast is already here. It
Quote from: dahangas i've already said, both simple and complex beginnings are difficult to accept. however, complex beginnings does exactly what the title suggests: makes it more complex. if you have trouble explaining how matter in some form could have just 'always been there', just think how intellectually dissatisfying it is to say 'a highly complex all powerful intelligence has always been there'. the latter increases chance into uncharted territory.you may find that thought intellectually dissatisfying, i don't. if god exists, and he's incomprehensible, to me that's just how it is. i don't think most people are dissatisfied that their belief in god implies certain questions will remain unanswered. you view god as improbable, many people don't feel the same.
Quote from: dahangi'm curious, how do you define accident? i don't recall ever even seeing that word in a science textbook.you can't expect certain results from the very beginning of the big bang, so it's extraordinarily unlikely to get a universe that supports life. evidence suggests that if there were previous big bangs a universe would form that would exist forever. both scientific results are not very conducive to life. you could have a multi-verse which could make life probable; however since we don't observer a multi-verse this is almost pure speculation. also, initial scientific analysis has shown a multi-verse shouldn't exists. string theory could change the probability of the way the universe forms, but this is just a more detailed understanding, it shouldn't effect the overall idea that the universe is unlikely to form the way it did.stephen hawking proposed the "no boundary-proposal" , he words his idea as a vague proposal: the proposal states time existed before the big bang. he says god wouldn't work arbitrarily if this proposal was true, i suppose he means you have a timestamp before the bigbang. however when he refers to god it seems he's doing so to appease the readers. so, you are left with the fact that the universe forms on accident, and is improbable. i think you have to agree that things happened arbitrarily and it was improbable we are here - if you want a simple beginning. the prior thoughts lead me to believe we should expect something complicated before the big bang, and if so where does that leave the answers that you deduce from evolution. this evidence, and strict logical thinking does not show the grace in your philosophy (simple beginnings). i think we've only discovered how much we don't know.
i'm curious, how do you define accident? i don't recall ever even seeing that word in a science textbook.
the human race is just a big mistake basically, apes were supposed to have ruled the galaxi until these humans came along, even though we supposedly evolved from apes but yet apes still live on earth and so do we, and there is no inbetween species alive (cromagnon, homo habilis, etc).
i don't know what to say....does the bible have something against improving economic transactions? how many beasts are there, just one?
it's intellectually satisfying to say there was an all powerful being that was around for an eternity (and does not require an explanation) before the universe was created? that seems more like a way to simply avoid the problem at hand. as i've said, the entity of god himself IS the most improbable being conceivable. name one single entity less improbable than god