[Discussion] Religion

[Vandenre1ch]

When you don't know what you're talking about then it's appropriate to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. I already gave you a response to the only 2 things that mattered in your post (changes in Bible and Christmas origin), the rest was just your own limited experience which you use to paint the whole group on. It's called generalization genius, and it's a fallacy.

So until you bring some actual arguments yourself, there isn't much for me to counter.

You assume I'm generalizing and you assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I gave a few reasons as to why I'm not religious, most of which being questions that alot of Christian seem to be unable to answer, yourself included apparently.

Instead of being ignorant and tossing my reasons aside, how about answering them hmm? I'll start with the basics:

Why does God punish Adam & Eve for eating of the Tree of Knowledge? Isn't he all seeing & all knowing? He should've known from the get go so he punishes the first humans for reasons. Why did God put the Tree of Knowledge in a place where Adam & Eve could easily reach? Did God let it happen and punished them anyways?

 

[Made in Heaven]

What? The guy said that our complexity is evidence of a creator, so I said that the complexity of this creator is evidence of the creator's creator. I'm just using his logic.

How does this disprove a creator?

You saying that God would not need a creator doesn't make it true.

Ditto to your argument. How do you know the creator(1) has a creator(2)? In fact, why would the creator(2) of the creator(1) need to create another creator(1)? If the creator(2) has the power to create another creator(1), he would simply create the creation himself.

In any case, like I said, even if the Creator(1) had a Creator(2), that doesn't invalidate the fact that we shouldn't worship that creator(1).

I could just say that matter does not need a creator then.

Matter doesn't need a creator? But matter was created. So who did it? You believe we came from nothing?

 

[nefraiko]

What? The guy said that our complexity is evidence of a creator, so I said that the complexity of this creator is evidence of the creator's creator. I'm just using his logic. You saying that God would not need a creator doesn't make it true. I could just say that matter does not need a creator then. That last part is completely irrelevant to the point of my post.

yeah and that guy has actually made a reply.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

How does this disprove a creator?


Ditto to your argument. How do you know the creator(1) has a creator(2)? In fact, why would the creator(2) of the creator(1) need to create another creator(1)? If the creator(2) has the power to create another creator(1), he would simply create the creation himself.

In any case, like I said, even if the Creator(1) had a Creator(2), that doesn't invalidate the fact that we shouldn't worship that creator(1).


Matter doesn't need a creator? But matter was created. So who did it? You believe we came from nothing?

I never said it disproves a creator. I was just showing how the complexity of organisms isn't evidence of a creator. For the last part of your post, I could just say that God was created, ask who did it, and ask if you believe God came from nothing.

 

[Punk Hazard]

How does this disprove a creator?


Ditto to your argument. How do you know the creator(1) has a creator(2)? In fact, why would the creator(2) of the creator(1) need to create another creator(1)? If the creator(2) has the power to create another creator(1), he would simply create the creation himself.

In any case, like I said, even if the Creator(1) had a Creator(2), that doesn't invalidate the fact that we shouldn't worship that creator(1).


Matter doesn't need a creator? But matter was created. So who did it? You believe we came from nothing?

If nothing can come from nothing, how does God come from nothing?

 

[nefraiko]

If nothing can come from nothing, how does God come from nothing?

the creator doesn't have the characteristics of the creation.

the human creates the machine. the machine doesn't need to eat. the human needs to eat.
god creates the human. the human need to be created to exists, god doesn't need to be created to exist.

the human obeys the time-space law, he didn't exist at a point of time, he will not exist at a point of time, god doesn't obey the time-space law, he's out of it, he created it, therefore, he always existed by himself.
that is what differenciate the human with the creator.

their is only one true creator : he creates things from nothing, new things.
he can create a whole new universe with new physic and mathematical laws, with new laws that are neather physics or maths, these are just laws we've seen in this universe.

the human just copies like a monkey, to prove it to you try to imagine a new color, try to create a new smell, no don't combine what you know to create something "new", create something new from nothing ! create, don't combine.
all the the "creations" of the human are just reproductions of what he has seen on this universe. you can't even imagine completly new things that is what makes you a creation. and these are your limits.

but then, if you only reproduce things from what you see, and if you are full of limits and never have seen nor experienced even once in your life not having limits, how can you know of the concept of "limitless" and "infinity" ? you've 100% seen it somewhere, or you've been taugh that it exists, because you can't think of new things by yourself.

 

[Punk Hazard]

the creator doesn't have the characteristics of the creation.

the human creates the machine. the machine doesn't need to eat. the human needs to eat.
god creates the human. the human need to be created to exists, god doesn't need to be created to exist.

the human obeys the time-space law, he didn't exist at a point of time, he will not exist at a point of time, god doesn't obey the time-space law, he's out of it, he created it, therefore, he always existed by himself.
that is what differenciate the human with the creator.

their is only one true creator : he creates things from nothing, new things.
he can create a whole new universe with new physic and mathematical laws, with new laws that are neather physics or maths, these are just laws we've seen in this universe.

the human just copies like a monkey, to prove it to you try to imagine a new color, try to create a new smell, no don't combine what you know to create something "new", create something new from nothing ! create, don't combine.
all the the "creations" of the human are just reproductions of what he has seen on this universe. you can't even imagine completly new things that is what makes you a creation. and these are your limits.

but then, if you only reproduce things from what you see, and if you are full of limits and never have seen nor experienced even once in your life not having limits, how can you know of the concept of "limitless" and "infinity" ? you've 100% seen it somewhere, or you've been taugh that it exists, because you can't think of new things by yourself.

So then what's stopping me from saying that you can't comprehend how matter came into existence without a creator because your mind is simply to simple to understand such a phenomenon, just like how our minds are too simple to comprehend how God exists without a creator?

Also, few things wrong with your analogy. Yes, machines do "eat." In order for anything to do work, it requires energy, which it gets from fuel. For a machine, that fuel may be oil or gasoline or electricity, whatever, which the machine converts to energy in order to do work. The fuel of human beings is food, which we get energy from and body uses to do its work, which are things like homeostasis, cell reproduction, respiration...you know, the things that keeps us functioning. Oh, speaking of keeping us functioning, another thing we have in common with machines: maintenance. You have to make sure your machine remains in good condition, or it malfunctions, breaks down, and stops working. Same for humans; we don't take care of ourselves through shit like exercise and good diet, we get fat, sick, and die. Another good way to kill machines and humans? Overworking. Just like machines need to go through periods of time where it isn't operating so it doesn't burn out and malfunction, humans need to take periods of time where we aren't working so we don't burn out and malfunction(die). It's called sleep.

God also shares many characteristics as us. He made us in his image, so we share many of his capacities, such as the capacity to feel love, anger, hatred, jealousy, happiness, sadness, etc. So, the "We are completely different" analogy isn't so airtight.

 

[nefraiko]

So then what's stopping me from saying that you can't comprehend how matter came into existence without a creator because your mind is simply to simple to understand such a phenomenon, just like how our minds are too simple to comprehend how God exists without a creator?

Also, few things wrong with your analogy. Yes, machines do "eat." In order for anything to do work, it requires energy, which it gets from fuel. For a machine, that fuel may be oil or gasoline or electricity, whatever, which the machine converts to energy in order to do work. The fuel of human beings is food, which we get energy from and body uses to do its work, which are things like homeostasis, cell reproduction, respiration...you know, the things that keeps us functioning. Oh, speaking of keeping us functioning, another thing we have in common with machines: maintenance. You have to make sure your machine remains in good condition, or it malfunctions, breaks down, and stops working. Same for humans; we don't take care of ourselves through shit like exercise and good diet, we get fat, sick, and die. Another good way to kill machines and humans? Overworking. Just like machines need to go through periods of time where it isn't operating so it doesn't burn out and malfunction, humans need to take periods of time where we aren't working so we don't burn out and malfunction(die). It's called sleep.

God also shares many characteristics as us. He made us in his image, so we share many of his capacities, such as the capacity to feel love, anger, hatred, jealousy, happiness, sadness, etc. So, the "We are completely different" analogy isn't so airtight.

we can comprehend god has been made by himself because he made us able to recognise him by thinking. in the islam it is called the "fitra" : every creation on the universe know who god is, even you, you can't help it that's how it is.

it was just an example showing that the creation doesn't share the same characteristics with the creator -_-
I build a machine that can keep on living feeding on the sunlight and that can live as long as the sun exists, after I'm long dead. the machine doesn't breath and doesnt have blood, and can fly and travel at the speed of light because it is able to supress its mass, and recreate it after it arrives. I created her but I don't have any of these characteristics.

god created us in his image is in christianity, we don't have any of these specifications in the quran. also, if I were a christian I'd say that your statement doesn't say anything. we can share some of his characteristics and that is true, we share some of his characteristics but he has the absolute characteristics. explanation bellow :

a human can be forgiving, relatively, but THE absolute forgiving is god
a human can be powerfull relatively, but THE personification of power is god

however, we don't share some characteristics, like death, and age, and creation, etc.
their are also characteristics that god has made forbidden FOR HIM, in the quran for example god says that he forbidden himself injustice, oppression and unfairness. he can be unfair but he's made restrictions on himself, as he is the only powerfull being that can make laws on himself.

also, one does not have to know everything about god in order for him to worship him, when he doesn't even know a thing about his own personality and how he behaves, he only needs evidence of god's existence, and what god judges that the person should know (what we believe is in the quran as the latest revelation).

 

[Made in Heaven]

If nothing can come from nothing, how does God come from nothing?

God always was and always will be. He's uncaused. Outside the scope of time because time itself is one of his creations.

So then what's stopping me from saying that you can't comprehend how matter came into existence without a creator because your mind is simply to simple to understand such a phenomenon, just like how our minds are too simple to comprehend how God exists without a creator?

How would something come into existence on it's own? Are you saying matter, space, and time can create themselves when they don't exist? Also note that we know matter, time, and space came into existence, and we also know that this trio DON'T have the ability to create themselves. Something creating itself when it doesn't even exist is nonsense.

Our minds aren't simple enough to not understand the idea of how God wasn't created. God is not bound to time, space, or matter as he created these himself. If he was created, it would mean there was a TIME in which he didn't exist, and in such a case, time would be superior to God, but nothing in creation (everything basically) can be superior to God.

 

[HyuugaHeir]

Im a Christian as far as I remember. Although I seldom go to church and attend masses, i find time to reevalute myself every once in a while. I think I dont believe in a certain god or what. I just think that there is a supreme being present. I've grown agnostic these past few years. I do believe in Karma and upholding morality.

I just dont believe that people should be bounded by religion.

 

[Punk Hazard]

God always was and always will be. He's uncaused. Outside the scope of time because time itself is one of his creations.

How would something come into existence on it's own?

Makes sense I guess.

 

[nefraiko]

The human also thinks like a monkey and his best argument to push God's existence is "he always existed", "you can't even begin to comprehend God".

we were given logic. witch is the basic law that regulates this universe. it is the base of mathematics and physics and everything. it has nothing to do with the ability to create as we exploit already existing laws.
logic brings the human who thinks deeply to this conclusion.
I don't even know why I reply to you, you clearly make fun of me and that's not the attitude of someone seriously seeking for an answer, whatever the answer is.

do whatever the **** you wanna do.
end of my discussion with you, understand ?

 

[Made in Heaven]

Makes sense I guess.

Matter is bound by time, so it needs to (and did) have a beginning, a creation. God isn't bound to time, as time is under his authority. Thus, he has no beginning. To assert that God has a beginning would be to assert that time is superior to him, and NONE of God's creations can ever be superior to him.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Matter is bound by time, so it needs to (and did) have a beginning, a creation. God isn't bound to time, as time is under his authority. Thus, he has no beginning. To assert that God has a beginning would be to assert that time is superior to him, and NONE of God's creations can ever be superior to him.

And who says that matter didn't exist outside of time? Laws of physics state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. If God doesn't exist, then the Universe and time as we know it began with the Big Bang. The Big Bang wasn't the creation of matter and energy, it was the expansion of all of the matter and energy that already exists in the Universe, which existed before time as we know it. Just like God, in your belief, existed outside of time, so has the matter and energy in the universe in mine. They two weren't created by anything, they just are.

 

[Nobel]

You believe we came from nothing?

Exactly, nothing is God. The concept that there is something unimaginable, that's who GOD is.

 

[nefraiko]

And who says that matter didn't exist outside of time? Laws of physics state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. If God doesn't exist, then the Universe and time as we know it began with the Big Bang. The Big Bang wasn't the creation of matter and energy, it was the expansion of all of the matter and energy that already exists in the Universe, which existed before time as we know it. Just like God, in your belief, existed outside of time, so has the matter and energy in the universe in mine. They two weren't created by anything, they just are.

ok matter existed outside of time and then the matter decided to change itself into the universe and then expanded and this made time and space and all the laws. this makes no sense as all of these components witch are the laws of the universe are part of this matter that existed before the big bang (the theory of big bang). the laws of the universe are the characteristics of this matter as nothing states in the THEORY of big bang that this matter existed forever, we only know that their was an explosion and that that our universe was very compressed and little and been expanding since then. this makes the matter also a creation, like everything in and with it.

just look at how the positioning of the earth has to be in orther for us to live, and at how only very mico-changes can wipe us out of the planet. how the moon and earth and all the planets are perfectly placed for life to be as it is. their is no possible way that this has been made by chance, no way.
look at how the earth has this shield that we call atmosphere that made it possible for us to live, and how it has been miraculously preserved from any of these giant asteroids hiting it.

their is just no escaping from the conclusion that their is god, no matter how you try.

 

[Punk Hazard]

ok matter existed outside of time and then the matter decided to change itself into the universe and then expanded and this made time and space and all the laws. this makes no sense as all of these components witch are the laws of the universe are part of this matter that existed before the big bang (the theory of big bang). the laws of the universe are the characteristics of this matter as nothing states in the THEORY of big bang says that this matter existed forever, we only know that their was an explosion and that that our universe was very compressed and little and been expanding since then.

their is just no escaping from the conclusion that their is god, no matter how you try.

It makes as much sense as the magic man who did the same thing. Matter and energy existed before the Universe and time. Time and the Universe came into being when the matter and energy expanded rapidly outwards.

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

God always was and always will be. He's uncaused. Outside the scope of time because time itself is one of his creations.



How would something come into existence on it's own? Are you saying matter, space, and time can create themselves when they don't exist? Also note that we know matter, time, and space came into existence, and we also know that this trio DON'T have the ability to create themselves. Something creating itself when it doesn't even exist is nonsense.

Our minds aren't simple enough to not understand the idea of how God wasn't created. God is not bound to time, space, or matter as he created these himself. If he was created, it would mean there was a TIME in which he didn't exist, and in such a case, time would be superior to God, but nothing in creation (everything basically) can be superior to God.

This deserves a rep. For a former athiest I am impressed.

 

[nefraiko]

It makes as much sense as the magic man who did the same thing. Matter and energy existed before the Universe and time. Time and the Universe came into being when the matter and energy expanded rapidly outwards.

I come at you with an argument you come at me with a reaffirmation of what you said. what should I understand ?
end of the discussion.

guess I should make this as my signature, yeah tomorow I will.
[video=youtube;GAfsP5AAiYo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAfsP5AAiYo[/video]

 

[Punk Hazard]

I come at you with an argument you come at me with a reaffirmation of what you said. what should I understand ?
end of the discussion.

I did present you with an argument: How do we know that the properties that you assign to God that allow him to exist outside of time don't apply to matter and energy, and we don't understand that for the same reasons we don't understand how God can exist outside of time?