|>If there is no God, or higher being, then everything must have a purpose and everything must have an answer (whether currently known or unknown.)

Does it? The purpose of life is the continuation of itself and nothing more as far as I can see and believe me, it wasn't easy for me to accept that. I don't see any greater purpose beyond this. For me, that essentially boils down to no purpose at all for individuals in this world.

|>There are an innumerable number of inexplicable realities in our lives. How did the universe come into existence? There is no solid explanation that can be proven, only theories.

And how exactly are you able to differentiate between the unexplained and the unexplainable? You just cherry-picked gaps in human knowledge and then claimed that these things cannot be explained. **You don't know that**. In the future these things may be explained. You cannot know what is unexplainable until you have explained everything that can be explained. And the human race certainly hasn't done that yet.*

I think you need to review your "logic" with all due respect, your conclusions seemed to be sought before you began towards an answer.



*Sorry for all the 'explain' :P

@RvW
That is exactly my point. If people are willing to accept the theory of a big bang, then where did the big bang come from? If an answer is found to that, then the question continues again, and again, and again. Until an answer is found then there is no end. If an answer IS found which proclaims an end, then a higher entity is found.
(Also, using a less scientific approach, if people are willing to accept the theory of a big bang which has not been fully explained, then that makes it just as possible for the existence of God which has not been fully explained.)

I am assuming that there is a purpose; because, quite literally, if we have no purpose, then there is no purpose to anything that we're doing and all actions, debates, or anything else is pointless.

If the purpose is to take care of the entire race, that also is pointless. Every single human will eventually die (not necessarily all at once, or at the point of extinction... although that is possible and makes this purpose even further pointless.) Even so, if we are the highest beings (which must be the case if our purpose is to take care of eachother) then for what reason do we take care of eachother? Why not simply take care of ourselves? And, what makes any action we take "wrong?"



@Ace Windu

Yes, that is the logical conclusion. Either there is a higher entity, or there is no purpose at all.

My point was that not only is it not explained currently, but if it were to be explained it would then lead to another unexplained question. And, if that question were to be explained, the process would continue on for infinity. If there was any answer which could halt the process, that answer would be a higher entity (not necessarily God, although in my -opinion- it would be some sort of god.)

If you are referring to even further down in my statements, as to how something can be unexplained, I was taking on the assumption that something could not be explained; because, as stated above, explanations lead to other questions and there are only so many ways to end a ceaseless cycle, one being an unexplainable occurence.

@ Imagination: You assume we have a purpose for no reason other than having no purpose does not appeal to you.

I'd like you to explain why the process of explaining things would continue on into infinity unless there is a god, rather than just state that that is the case.

|>There are only so many ways to end a ceaseless cycle, one being an unexplainable occurence.

And the other ways are?

I am not entering the debate on the validity of religion or the existance of deities, however a friend and I thought up something very interesting.

If God is portrayed as the creator of the universe and thus the human species in the christian religion, which makes him the father of all humans. Also Jesus is said to be the son of God and manifestation God on earth. If God is the father of Mary, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, it would mean that God impregnated his own daughter with himself [Gross].

I would LOVE to read your comments.

it is impossible to keep up with this thread wish i could just respond to all this questions also lykus seems like the point of this all thread is to make Christians looks bad

@EVERY BODY

this is just bullshit

EVOLITON NO

GOD CREATED US YES


are you idiots...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Musilim is the one and true religon

Wow lykus. Disprove my poits, love to hear how well you can, or if you are just making a pathetic comeback... your the perfect example of those who cant be conivnced, although I seriously doubt anyone can change their minds off a computer post. **Did you create the post to insult our beleifs, or because you thought it would be hilarious?** Most "american christians" arent even the right view of christians, and go to church on sunday, just to be no different than you or I . They ignore christian ideas, even though they claim to be one. To explain on school propoganda, *you spend more time in the books talking about how wrong religion is then you do even learning it.*

It probably wasnt the best idea for our founding fathers to make us a multiracial, multireligional nations, becuase we end up with discussions like this and *one viewed guys like lyukus* but our leaders didnt think we'd have so much beleifs that people canned them all **without reading only the first sentence**
*Lyukus can call me shallow, but in the end he is the shallow one, for just dissing everybodies explanation after not even finishing the first paragraph. You start to wonder did this one viewed person just create the post to can Christianity. If he doesnt listen to ecplanations, its obvious he made it to insult.* ** Lyukus is the classic example of a bigot, unopen to explanations, but is fine with himself. He pictures himself as open, but he is a shallow person not open to opinion.**

|>CHRISTIANS ARE GIVEN A BAD REP

look at that, only had to read 6 words.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/study-explores-distrust-o_n_1120869.html

http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2816.html


People like you are not worth my time. Your opinions about me are meaningless. Go have fun with your life full of blissful ignorance.

I'm an atheist and I don't agree with Catholicism especially american catholic groups but I have many friends who are catholic who are really nice people so it really does is the person,the way they were brought up and their parents that make the difference

fuck reddawgs98

Scientists actually do have some reasonable theories as to the genesis of the Big Bang, though it's pretty heavy-duty quantum physics stuff and I can't claim to understand it very well. No respectable scientist would claim to truly KNOW what started it, because we are only now on the cusp of having the perspective and base of knowledge to start seriously tackling the problem.

Nonetheless, the evidence pointing to the actuality of the Big Bang is quite overwhelming - since we are looking at radiant energy (in many spectra) that came from very very very far away, we are literally looking back in time - Since the universe is expanding, the spectral signature of the light is slightly warped by the relative momentum between us as the observer and the energy source. You've probably heard of this effect under the terms "Red Shift" and "Blue Shift", and also experienced something exactly like it when a police car drives by and the pitch of the siren changes (the "Doppler Effect.") Armed with this knowledge, Scientists can determine the movement of the light source relative to us, and using other properties of the observed energy can roughly calculate the distance from us to the point in space at which the object emitted the energy. Scientists labored to map and describe the known universe using these and other methods (such as the gravitational bending of light, which was used to confirm the existance of Black Holes and Dark Matter,) and the result is a pretty clear picture - the universe is expanding from a central point, and that expansion appears to be accelerating.

What I mean to say by all of this is that the Big Bang is something that is STILL IN THE PROCESS OF OCCURING, like a boulder tumbling down a mountain. We can look at the big bang with our telescopes just like we can look at that boulder with our eyes, but that observation is not enough to provide us the details of how exactly the boulder started its fall in the first place. You could say that God made it happen, and you might be right, but then again it could have been a goat or a clump of melted snow.

The problem with the idea that people have about the tension between science and religion is that they view it to be some sort of equal battle when it isn't - I can look at something through a telescope and say wow! Look at that! Do you see what I see? This is observational evidence, and it can be repeated again and again and again. The bible, however, was only a DESCRIPTION of what might have been observational evidence (though it could just as well be pure drivel, the ravings of self-interested men), and that observation is not available to be made again and corroborated by a disinterested third-party. That means that today the bible is merely anecdotal, not observational, and thus completely fails the kind of peer-reviewed and rigorous testing and discussion that takes place as a matter of routine in scientific discourse. It may well be that noone will ever know what (or who) pushed the boulder, because someone would have to have been in a position to observe it when it happened, or the information to divine that knowledge would have to be available by looking at the boulder when it comes to rest, or perhaps by physically going to and analyzing the site that it originated from. Since we have only anecdotal evidence of anyone truly coming back from the dead (as in necrotized brain dead, not heart-stopped for a few minutes dead,) science is in no position to make claims one way or the other as to the existance of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since any such claims would have to happen (due to our lack of perspective) outside of the process of observation, explanation, and peer-review that are an intrinsic part of what science actually is.

AAAAAAAND Finally - If you Christians sense hostility from those of us who don't subscribe to your religious beliefs, that's because your religion as a whole has been forcing those beliefs down our throats (Contraception, Euthanesia, Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc) for two thousand years and counting. Screw you for that. Really. The hostility you feel from us is real. But that doesn't mean I can't get over it on a personal level, and I count many deeply religious people amongst my friends and family.

Lykus, why post a thread saying you're open to ideas about religion and just insult and call B.S on every post defending religion, all you're doing is making arguements flare up about it. *It's pretty obvious we can't convince eachother.*

@Ace Windu
I have already agreed with you that the logical conclusion is that there is either no purpose or a higher diety. How much further can I expound on the concept of not having a purpose other than simply saying "Well, maybe there is no purpose. - The End." It seems that because of the complete lack of ability to make an argument equivalent in length for both suppositions, a purpose or no purpose, that you are unable to identify the fact that I'm stating "Well, maybe there is no purpose."

And the other way, which I have already stated, is that there is actually an answer which has either been found, or is yet to be found.

@devilnis
(I'm not sure if you were even addressing my statements, but even so I am simply responding to yours.)

I have not even been arguing the legitimacy of the big bang theory. I was pointing out that there is not a consensus on either it's legitimacy as a theory or the evidence to support the theory. Now, not having a consensus does not serve to negate the legitimacy of the theory. After all, not knowing an answer does not mean that the answer does not exist at all. My point is, that the lack of confirmation for the theory, or knowledge of the answer, undermines the credibility of the argument that God does not exist because God's existence cannot, or has not, been proven. When, that argument itself does not have any confirmed alternative.


Also, are you attempting to tell Christians that they should stop complaining about the hostility they feel, which you yourself say is valid and real, because of the hostility which you have felt from the "religion as a whole" from Christians? Because I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a person who is looking through a one-way mirror.

Ok, so essentially we agree to disagree at this point. I misinterpreted your previous post, so sorry about that :)

Christian intrusion into our lives takes an active form. They bar my gay friends from marrying, they murder abortion doctors, they attempt to teach creationism in school as if it's a tested and verifiable fact. I as an agnostic am not telling you you MUST have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex as you. How is it that I am limiting your freedom and thus justifying your hostility towards my point of view? I don't feel in any way threatened by the fact that you believe differently from the way I believe, I feel threatened by the ways in which you exercise those beliefs, and history is full of examples of the injustices commited thereby in the name of Christianity.

As to the big bang - Calling it a theory is very similar to calling the Laws of the Conservation of Energy a theory. There COULD be some other explanation for what we see, but the big bang has been analyzed, tested, its characteristics predicted mathematically and verified to the best of our abilities through rigorous observation. The remaining naysayers are reduced to attempting to write off the whole thing as false due to the fact that it doesn't explain (or even attempt to explain) everything. Science isn't here to provide an answer to "Why?", it's here to discribe, as accurately as possible, what there is and how it came to be to the best of our observational abilities.

Christianity, meanwhile, is no more nor less viable an explanation than voodoo, in that it explains everything in a system that is wholly internal to its own argument, and can't be truly tested against observational evidence. I'm not going to race to lend credence to the beliefs of the voodoo priests, why stand so shocked that I wouldn't lend credence to Christianity's version of creation? And why be so surprised that I resent the way your Christian voodoo has impacted my life and the lives of those I care about? If you want to teach creationism to your kids, go for it. If you want to abstain from pre-marital sex, go for it. If you want to bring the rapist's baby into the world because you have a moral issue with abortion, go for it. Just stay the hell out of MY decisions on those things, because they have absolutely nothing to do with you whatsoever at all.

Buddhists aren't influencing public policy to the detriment of my freedom and so I have no ill-will towards them at all, even though I think their story is every bit as far-fetched as Christianity. The difference is that Christianity intrudes on my life, and that, my friend, is an observable and verifiable fact.

I can see that you're having a heated discussion with yourself. I hope all goes well with that.

I would address (some) of your statements (because the rest of your statements are entirely based on emotionalism and opinions, things which have no possibility of even "arguing" {for lack of a better word}) but it seems that any attempt I make would only end up in getting a response that vaguely and indirectly addresses my statements and then quickly spins off into another tangent. That would be a waste of my time, and thus I shall become solely an observer to your single-person conversation. Do carry on.

Whatever dude, you keep claiming that extensively verified facts are opinions, so it's no wonder that you are unable to adequately respond to them. I've responded to many of the points you've brought up, and if I ramble and topic drift a bit, the same can clearly be said of you as well.

1) Followers of Christianity attempt to influence my freedoms due to their interpretations of the moral commandments of their religion. True or False?

2) Verifiable evidence, such as the spectral shifting I spoke of earlier, corroborates the existance of the Big Bang, yet does not corroborate the Christian story of creation. True or False?

3) Christianity has no greater or lesser claim to truth than any other major religion such as Buddhism or Shinto since all alleged evidence that could provide strength to that claim is anecdotal, not repeatedly observable. True or False?

4) I have never once claimed to know that God does not exist, and since it is you and your ilk that so strenously maintain that He does exist, and work to limit my freedoms as a result of that belief, the burden of providing proof of that existence to a skeptical audience lies on you as the originator of the declaration of his existance. Since you cannot, it stands to reason that I would be resentful of Christian influence upon my freedoms since the whole basis on which you make your arguments to curtail those freedoms cannot be shown to be correct in any way, shape, or form, and the fact that it also cannot be shown to be incorrect is totally irrelevant. True or False?

My logic here is totally impeccable. Yours shows some promise here and there but appears to originate from an inherently illogical premise - That this unprovable thing DOES exist, therefore my freedoms should be limited in accordance with that fact even though it isn't actually a fact because it's unprovable. One more question for you:

I believe that the Big Bang theory is of high probability to be reasonably close to the truth. I have used my belief in it to justify an attempt by me and people who are of like-mind to curtail your personal freedoms. True? Or False...

Good luck!

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org
check this site out.

It had a fun format, but rapidly devolved into logical fallacy. It asked me if I felt that Absolute Moral Laws exist. I do not believe that they do. It asked me again with a not so subtle nudge to its preferred answer by asking me if I believed that child molestation for fun is ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG. I do not believe this to be the case. Morality is a human construct, and thus "absolute" morality (that which is independent of the beliefs of the observer) cannot exist. One can claim there is an arbiter of an absolute morality (aka God) but the societal desire for this arbiter to exist does not necessarily make it so.

Child molestation is immoral because there is a societal consensus that this is so. This consensus arose because allowing things like child molestation (and other consensus moralities such as respect for life and property) to occur destabilizes society, so a complex stable society would never evolve if such actions were condoned. The universe, however, cannot be shown to care. Any moment we could get hit by a gamma ray burst and we would all fry to cinders in an instant, and the hypothetical child's potential for future happiness is ruined with even MORE assurance than if they were molested. Are the gamma ray burst or the ultradense objects that spawned it MORALLY TO BLAME for this? No. They aren't. Morality exists only within the inherently limited scope of sentient observation.

The site you linked, interesting as it may be in its construction, is attempting to use emotional goads (and you can be sure that I am indeed disturbed as anyone should be at the thought of child molesters) to cause me to accept a logical fallacy, but personal and societal righteousness are not analagous to universal morality, no matter how the website manipulates the question in the hopes of eliciting a specific answer.

@Zilmorph
|> I would LOVE to read your comments.

Cute, but God is only "the father of all humans" in a figurative way, not in the biological way, which pretty much ruins your argument. If you build a sexbot, you are its creator, its "father", would that make it incest to sleep with it?


@RuthLess
Looks like you made quite a typo there, here, let me fix it for you:
|> @Everybody
|> This is just bullshit
|> Can only Christians be ignorant morons NO
|> Are there also Muslims who are ignorant morons YES

(For the people with limited reading comprehension, I'm **not** calling all Christians / Muslims ignorant morons, I'm merely asserting the possibility for one to exist (strictly speaking I'm not even saying one exist, has existed or will exist, only leaving the possibility open).)

Not that I really believe you're a Muslim of course, probably just a Christian who wants to give Muslims a bad reputation (for instance, you used the word "God" instead of "Allah"). Either way, I've been told that Muslim craftsmen always (intentionally) make the smallest of error in their products. It's a way of paying tribute to Allah: since perfection is reserved for him it would be blasphemous to attempt perfection themselves. I can only conclude that you must be the most devout Muslim on the face of this planet (and probably well beyond) if the degree of imperfection in your reasoning is anything to go by...

@reddawgs98
|> It probably wasnt the best idea for our founding fathers to make us a multiracial, multireligional nations, becuase we end up with discussions like this

Excuse me...!?
They didn't exactly had much of a choice regarding the "multiracial" bit, it was either massacring all the "native Americans" (not that they didn't try...), getting the hell out of there themselves, or going multiracial.
Besides, there's this thing called "freedom of speech", last I checked it's "kinda" important. How are you going to have freedom of speech if you don't even allow people to have any religion they want?

I'm from Europe, if I travel 1000 km (approx. 650 miles) I go through five different countries (four *other* ones if I go in another direction) and just as many languages. I have no idea how many "races" or "cultures" that would cover (how would you even count that?), but it covers three mayor branches of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox). Travelling 2000 km brings me to Turkey, where most people are Muslim. All of that is ignoring small minorities of course.
Maybe it's just me, but I *like* multiracial, multireligional, multilanguagal, multicultural and probably most other multis you can think up. The only thing I like even more (or, the thing which makes me enjoy it) is tolerance, which you are not displaying nearly enough of, for my taste...

@Lykus
|> Go have fun with your life full of blissful ignorance.

Are you by any chance an Alanis Morissette fan? Because man, do you love [irony](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc)...!

@devilnis
|> like a boulder tumbling down a mountain (..) You could say that God made it happen, and you might be right, but then again it could have been a goat or a clump of melted snow.

Did you think up that analogy by yourself, or did you get it from somewhere? That's quite important for me to know; gotta credit the right source when I'm reusing it. :D

@[P/X] jsa11111
Apart from devilnis' (very valid) points, there's another huge problem with that site. It first makes you say you believe a bunch of things exist, so far, (mostly, see devilnis' post) so good. Then on the second-to-last page it suddenly pulls in the Bible out of nowhere:
|> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable.

So, the Bible is wrong, reasoning broken...

|> The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

It can declare all it wants, but if I state "The sun is a triangle", would you believe me because I declare it to be "so obvious that you are without excuse for not believing me"? Or would you point out "if it's so incredibly obvious, humour me, *explain* **why** it's so obvious"...?

|> The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary.

Problems:
1. What if there is no sense to be made of universal, abstract, invariant laws?
2. God is not at all the necessary starting point, science has been doing a pretty good job so far.
3. What does "by the impossibility of the contrary" even mean??

|> The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

I had high hopes for that site. Especially when it asked "are [the laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality] made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?" I thought I knew where it was going ("you believe in logic, mathematics and science, you agree that they are immaterial [some deduction] then why can you not accept an equally immaterial god?"). Unfortunately it failed miserably, instead spewing out some lame dogma. :(