Religion

[X]

Well, yea. That's pretty much the big bang theory right there, hence my statement that everything happens by coincidence. Personally, I don't buy into the first cause theory. Again, existence itself is not proof of God. Not by a long shot. The way you state it, the Atheist point of view sounds ridiculous, but it's the most sensible. Space was small (really, really small) and it expanded, and continues to do so up until this day. Simple as. There's room for God, sure, but there's also room for a giant space ferret behind the scenes. Then again, I guess that'd just be "God" again. Not taking the piss, just making the comparison.



I disagree that there has to be something out there. Well, you'd have specify what something is. Other civilizations? In all probability. But a God? Coincidence is much better explanation for why we exist, and it's perfectly feasible.



Not if we're, y'know, truly dead. As in, no afterlife, no reincarnation, just... nothing. Again, perfectly feasible. Discomforting, yes, but more feasible than an omnipotent being pulling the strings on everything.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're avoiding the big question here, I'm not asking HOW the Universe was created, I'm asking WHY. And thats something that no science or religion can prove. Frankly the way you make it sound, the Universe just popped up out of nowhere one day, for no good reason, and then human beings evolved(or were created) for what? For what purpose? It's just not feasible or logical to think that the Universe exists simply for the sake of existing. And for us to assume that it does, is mind-fuckingly arrogant because as much as we don't like to think so, we Humans are not NEARLY as intelligent as we see ourselves. There are things out there we don't know, will never know maybe. How do you know those things that we don't know wouldn't contradict everything you thought you knew?

You just don't.

I'm not saying God did it. I'm not saying Science did it. I'm saying that there has to be a damn reason as to WHY it was done. And thats something that your point of view not only doesn't explain, but can't.

 

[Total Impact]

the main thing to remember is that no matter what you follow, as long as it leads to a positive life where you are happy with yourself is the only thing that matters. And we won't know who is right until the end.

For some it is heaven, for others its just becoming one with the earth. For me, I have no clue, but if I live my life and christians are right, then I'm going to hell. But hell can't be that bad, I mean you get beat for a while and then you get used to it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're avoiding the big question here, I'm not asking HOW the Universe was created, I'm asking WHY.

Like I said, by applying the logic of Occam's razor, the most sensible and likely explanation is that we are here due to complete coincidence - it's the simplest explanation which requires the fewest assumptions, and so is the most likely to be correct.

And thats something that no science or religion can prove. Frankly the way you make it sound, the Universe just popped up out of nowhere one day, for no good reason, and then human beings evolved(or were created) for what? For what purpose?

Well, yea, again, the whole "no purpose thing". I've already explained that, so I won't do again.

It's just not feasible or logical to think that the Universe exists simply for the sake of existing.

Yet it's more feasible to think that there's some meaning behind it? When there is no evidence for meaning there is complete evidence for lack of meaning. If there's no evidence for there being milk in the fridge, there's complete evidence for milk not being in the fridge, to put it on much less cosmic terms.

And for us to assume that it does, is mind-fuckingly arrogant because as much as we don't like to think so, we Humans are not NEARLY as intelligent as we see ourselves. There are things out there we don't know, will never know maybe. How do you know those things that we don't know wouldn't contradict everything you thought you knew?

Then it's best to throw our reasoning out of the window, think our logic isn't nearly good enough, and assume something exists which there is no evidence for? Human intelligence may not be massive, although it's the best of any known life form, but our logic cannot be faulted - and that's not due to our inability of being able to think outside the box either.

It's brain-rapingly, leg-slashingly, face-burningly, eye-poppingly arrogant to suggest that we are here for a reason, to go against the lack of evidence and claim there's something out there anyway in some odd attempt to "cover the bases" just in case we're too stupid to realise how stupid we are.

I'm not saying God did it. I'm not saying Science did it. I'm saying that there has to be a damn reason as to WHY it was done. And thats something that your point of view not only doesn't explain, but can't.

Well, I've provided the simple yet indisputable evidence of basic logic and reason for my side of the argument. I don't see why there has to be a reason, particularly when our own logic tells us otherwise.

I can't prove a negative, particularly on this scale, so don't ask me to do the impossible. I've merely shown that the greatest form of logic ever, that of simplicity and no assumptions, applied to the situation suggests a massive likelihood for lack of reason, as there is no evidence for reason.

 

[Grubbs0621]

My personal beliefs, are odd.

For years in my younger years and early teens I was an Atheist. Most due to the fact of the life I had lived so far. I spoke out for free thinkers, wrote and contributed articles when possible and read a lot of free thinking literature.

I went through a series of events around the time I was 15 or 16 that basically concluded with me on the steps of a church in tears and it helped me, find my faith. But I very alternate faith is what I hold.

I don't believe that only Christians go on to Heaven. I barely consider myself a Christian, although I do believe and follow Jesus Christ as the Holy Figure. I am just not the biggest fan of organized religion. Who is to say the beliefs I hold are any better than the Islam faith, Hindu faith, etc? Especially when so many religions are so similar when anaylzed closely. They all have the same concept, help the needy, live a good life, etc, etc. It is impossible for me to say, I am right, you are wrong. Especially when so many religion's have been altered and changed by man.

But that is the beauty of faith. And I believe that the higher power is a justful being.

"I don't believe religion is practicing the right religion, but rather practicing religion the right way."

You live a good life, you hold to the core of the religion, and do the things you are suppose to do, I believe we will end up in our respected afterlife.

May not make sense to you, but it is all good.

 

[X]

I'm sorry Sam, but if you're going to say that its more logical for something to simply exist for sake of existing, then for a purpose for that existence, then thats just ludicrous and goes against all scientific reasoning and thought, which you keep preaching here.

Things don't just exist for no reason. There is a cause for them. Your television doesn't just exist for existing's sake. It's built for a reason. Blood is in our body for a reason. Plants need water for a reason. These things aren't just existing for that sake. Everything has a cause, and to say it doesn't, is unscientific.

There is a reason the universe exists. Perhaps intelligent design, perhaps science, but until its explained, stop acting like you know the answer here. You don't, at all.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm sorry Sam, but if you're going to say that its more logical for something to simply exist for sake of existing, then for a purpose for that existence, then thats just ludicrous and goes against all scientific reasoning and thought, which you keep preaching here.

Things don't just exist for no reason. There is a cause for them. Your television doesn't just exist for existing's sake. It's built for a reason. Blood is in our body for a reason. Plants need water for a reason. These things aren't just existing for that sake. Everything has a cause, and to say it doesn't, is unscientific.

There is a reason the universe exists. Perhaps intelligent design, perhaps science, but until its explained, stop acting like you know the answer here. You don't, at all.

I'm not quite sure if this is the first cause argument you're using or something completely, well, not completely, but something different. You're right, television doesn't exist for it's own sake because, we, humans built them for a reason. Plants need water to survive, yes.

I never denied that the universe didn't have a cause. I merely said that it existed due to coincidental circumstances - the same reason the Earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the Earth. I think you misunderstood me. You were stating that the universe is evidence for God, which it isn't. I never meant to suggest the universe didn't have a cause - it did. Whether that cause was due to coincidental circumstances or for a purpose from a higher being, I was merely pointing out the former is more likely.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Like I said, by applying the logic of Occam's razor, the most sensible and likely explanation is that we are here due to complete coincidence - it's the simplest explanation which requires the fewest assumptions, and so is the most likely to be correct.

Problem 1: You assume that coincidentalism is more "simple" than theism. I guess it is simpler if you decide to shut off your mind and stop trying to determine causation. Think about everything...EVERYTHING has a cause. Why did the pencil fall off of the table? Your answer, using your subscription of Occam's razor, would leave the matter at "the pencil fell off the table." But really, it is far more sensible to think that the table was sloped downward, and since the pencil is cylindrical and Earth is a gravity saturated environment, the pencil fell off the table.

Problem 2: I think that you might be taking Occam's razor and warping it a little bit. First of all, "Occam's razor" was a theory developed by logicist and Franciscan friar (aka a theist) William of Ockham. Furthermore, it appears that much of the use of the term was used in practicality. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote during the 13th century, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices." Also, a direct Latin-English translation of "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (the law of parsimony) reads: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

To myself, it would seem logical and sensible that since we can fathom that which could exist before coincidentalism or set it in motion, it would be necessary to continue multiplication.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I never meant to suggest the universe didn't have a cause - it did. Whether that cause was due to coincidental circumstances or for a purpose from a higher being, I was merely pointing out the former is more likely.

Logically, that's just a terrible assumption. If anything, they would be on equal playing fields. How would coincidentalism be more likely? Because of how you interpret Occam's razor? You subscribe to the version that states that the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions is the best. Meanwhile, you are assuming that this theory is authoritative and that coincidence is simpler than creation in terms of the origin of the universe.