I was planning to infract you, which I could do for multiple reasons including spamming, multi-posting and insulting people, however that would have meant an instant ban for you as you already have 2 active infraction points. So I decided to give you one last chance despite the reality I know that it's completely wasted on you as you are a lost cause on pretty much all fronts. So one chance and if you screw it up then it will lead to a permanent ban from this section on top of a lengthy ban from the forums, which also has the additional benefit that we don't have to waste time anymore on reports about you. Either you are stupendously naive and ignorant, which makes you incapable of even thinking about matters like this, or you are a flat out troll or both. Whatever might be the case the result remains the same, namely that this thread is an utter fallacy.
Those brilliant minds can tell countless of things about dreams. They can't however say for certain what exactly is the purpose as, unlike you, they don't have an ancient, dubious and contradictory manmade compilation book that has the answer written in it. Those minds can give you countless of theories and possibilities, most of which are very plausible, but they can't say with a 100% certainty that one of them is legit as there is nothing that can confirm its authenticity. You talk like dreams are something simple, but they are not. They're highly complex and very difficult to research.
Did you now seriously use a riddle meant to give children a head scratcher as an argument against the potential non-existence of a god? The reason why children get confused by this riddle, is because they see the world in a rather static fashion. They see a chicken, they see an egg. Chicken lay eggs from which new chickens emerge, so how can that be? Where's the start of this infinite loop? However scientists don't see a chicken and an egg, they see a species that's the result of millions of years of evolution and that is still evolving. It's not something static. For science this is not a viable riddle as when should they then consider a chicken as a chicken and an egg as an egg? The answer to that supposed riddle would completely depend on the perception as for instance a chicken is a descendant from the dinosaurs, but that doesn't make dinosaurs chicken. And btw there have been scientists who seriously investigated this and provided answers. The truth is that it's not a riddle at all.
I don't know if I have to laugh or cry about the fact that you brought this up.
The very reason as why it's been theorized there's a 9th planet, is because scientists made the observations that there is something off with movements of several celestial bodies, which can be explained by an additional unknown planet. The problem is that this theoretical planet is hidden from view. The Solar System is vast and even with the state of the art technology our means to explore the Universe are severely limited. It has been calculated that if there is indeed an unknown planet, it has to have such a wide orbit around the sun that it would take thousands of years to make one complete trip and that presumably for the entire duration mankind has studied the planetary movements, it has never appeared in plain sight. You can't see something if it's hidden behind something else. If the view of this planet is blocked by numerous other celestial bodies, well then it's freaking hard to determine its existence. Again this is really not a simple matter, but it seems you have the tendency to simplify the world in your mind.
It's also nonsensical that you throw into the faces of scientists that they can't find a planet while they are the ones who largely brought up this unknown hypothetical planet. You are essentially throwing information into their faces you received from them.
James Cameron, as a publicity stunt, went to one of the deepest parts of the oceans all the way to the bottom. The problem here is that such a trip is highly expensive, not in the least because you need to use highly expensive custom made and sensitive equipment, let alone performing it multiple times. To research all the oceans, you would need to make hell of a lot of trips. There are simply too many practical issues involved here, its also highly dangerous.
No they don't. Putting aside the centuries old myths, scientist have been theorizing for decades about the existence of giant squads. Amongst others because they found remains inside the stomachs of stranded whales. Estimations were made based on those remains and the results were that they had to be quite big. The problem however is, as I explained before, that it's highly difficult to investigate them and unlike you they are not going to naively assume things. To properly define a new species, they first have to collect enough information: how many are there? Where do they live? What do they eat? How do they reproduce? etc. It's possible that giant squids are really nothing more than oversized normal squids, just like that there are humans who are unnaturally tall.
It seems you are quite confused about the point you tried to make yourself. Essentially this comes down to the idea that we still know very little about our world and the universe, ergo we can't say for certain that somewhere there is a god lurking. As an argument that's extremely weak as that just comes down to the concept of not being able to disprove something. You can't prove it, but neither disprove it. However putting that aside you seem to be completely unaware that this means that there could be an infinite amount of possibilities and that your god is only one of them.
So congratulations, you just placed your own god in the same league as a big, fat, purple, bisexually transvestite hippo that loves to twerk, lives in a pineapple at the bottom of the ocean and who in its free time plays intergalactic golf with planets trying to score a black hole in one. I mean there is so little we know and according to your logic there is nothing that makes your god more credible than the hippo.
During the era of these 'ancient humans' (can you be more vague?), most people were illiterate and simple. Only a small amount of people could read and write. Learning those two was expensive, not only because it was difficult, but also because the materials weren't cheap. Hence why in many cultures the act of writing was considered sacred. So you couldn't just write anything you wanted anywhere. Writing was used only for very specific tasks and the majority of all the written records produced by mankind has disappeared. We only have a fraction of the records at our disposal and all of them have interpretation issues in various degrees. But somehow you know exactly what someone who has been dead for millennia was trying to say?
Do you know that game where you whisper a sentence into someone's ear and that person then whispers it into someone else's and after a while the last person says the sentence and it doesn't resemble the original sentence at all? Well multiply that a hundred fold and that's how most records are. Imagine tomorrow a disaster happens and mankind is nearly wiped out. The civilization level is rapidly thrown back several centuries and it will take another millennium to reach back the current level. Archeologists and historians try to research the history of mankind before the disaster and they find Japanese tentacle porn and then one of them interprets that as "omg tentacled aliens invaded earth and raped and impregnated women". That's you right now. "Omg a human with wings is portrayed, what does this mean? Oh btw I'm going to watch DBZ, you know the anime where people fly".
Ancient humans recorded a lot of things, including humans with two heads, four legs and four arms. As I said before the credibility of these records isn't very high. You are apparently under the impression that just because something is ancient it somehow is more credible. It is not, in fact it's the opposite.
Scientists have found the remains of giant monkey species. Burying fake giant bones and then excavate them is also not uncommon. There's even an instant that a prank like this went too far. You also need to be certain that it's simply not a large human with a condition. Ever heard of gigantism? Also the average height was till recently still very low. If you would be able to go to the past a thousand years ago, most people would have to look up at you. So the human perception of a giant is by default rather subjective. You really would need to find multiple intact giant skeletons to back this up on top of solving the anatomical issues as likewise scientists have researched what would be needed to let such a huge body function and the results weren't positive.
You seem to not even realize that the god you believe in and that the god you are trying to prove here, are not even remotely the same thing. You also seem to be completely oblivious about the fact that nothing you wrote actually supports the idea of the existence of a god. Somehow giant squids and unknown planets are proof for a god. I didn't know there was a section in the Bible that gives an overview of all the planets in existence and that it contains an autopsy report of the dissection of a giant squid. Somehow this all is supposed to be working against science despite the fact that god is scoring even worse in that aspect.
If not believing in god is dumb, then by default believing in a god would be even worse than that following your own reasoning. It would be borderline retardation or what is the dumbest? Accepting that you have limited information about the world, but via observations, experiments and research try to gain new information and, if needed, edit older information based on new findings all to gain universal knowledge or believing in a deity that has the same credibility as a purple hippo with gender issues?
If what I see around me is the proof of a god, that god needs a shrink asap as he has some severe mental issues. On your left side you see people blowing themselves up randomly. On your right side you see people starving in the gutter and in front of you see the preparations of WW III. Isn't it wonderful ^w^
Do you know how I imagine this sentence? As a kid that just received a new toy, but threw it away after 5 minutes and then 40 years later when that same child all grown up is cleaning out the attic, he finds his old toys back and sees that they started a cult that revers him as a supreme deity and they then ask him about the meaning of their existence. The child then completely freaks out and throws the toys away.
Says the guy who is citing a dubious manmade compiled book that has so many obvious contradictions that even 1600 years ago prominent Christians had to point out that if you blindly and literally accept everything that's written in the Bible as an absolute truth, you're screwing yourself over as the moment a more acceptable alternative explanation is provided (science), the entire Bible loses its credibility. You know the thing you are doing right now.
And if all this was too long or too difficult for you to read. Let me put in a more simplistic way: you are free to believe in any god you want and place him outside our realm of existence, completely untouched by any kind of law, reason or logic. However you really need to realize that the moment you try to prove the existence of a being that by its very core is unreasonable with a supposed logical reasoning and argumentation, the only thing you do is hammering the nails of the god's coffin. You have more success by simply shutting up as the only thing argumentation like yours does is making it that much more obvious how feeble god's potential existence actually is.
