I've created a monster.

Keep going.

Monsters, Trolling, Rape, The woods, Inane pseudocomments, Slender Man, Dr. Karl Barishnikov, Meme acceleration, Roofing, Modest Mouse, Turtles, Marine Biology, Braid, Team Meat, Memes, Alcar's penis, OddHunter, Doublefine, Anime, OANST, OANST's family, Everything else OANST likes and Faith in religion, or religious figures is also disgusting, hateful, and a great source of pain all throughout human history.

It's a practical and methodological concern. Ideas and concepts for which there is evidence and ideas and concepts that have emerged from observation have produced real-world outcomes and products the likes of which philosophy can only discuss, and religion can only resist. And here's the awesome part: those discoveries and evidence-based ideas lead on to even more ideas and discoveries. I don't need to tell you how thought and evidence is a positive feedback loop that accelerates science beyond anything philosophy is capable of, being based on just thought. It can't be ignored, the values of evidentialism are its own unmatched accomplishments, and as far as I'm concerned science doesn't need to justify itself to the rest of philosophy at all.

But ideas about the nature of the universe, and lets not kid ourselves, a god's existence, have a very major effect on the nature of the universe, and those are scientific. Not necessarily in origin, but they stumble deep into science's territory and thus can be examined critically and scientifically. And gods fall at every hurdle. It's true that there is no evidence for them, and in a broader sense that is important (and a very good thing too) but that is quite trivial compared with the problems of the idea itself. The term would be "not even wrong". The response would be "go home and do it again". It is beyond the reach of science to deal with as we would anything real because the idea is so useless and poorly constructed. I've always said, if there are any gods at all then it is science that will discover them, and any resemblance to those of our myriad human religions will be purely coincidental.

On top of that, all the gods we've heard of bear all the gruesome hallmarks of having been invented by a creature half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee. There is really no good reason to take any of them seriously at all.

One's the root of the other. I think both are poisonous. In before "you have faith in science" and similar nonsense.

LIKE A PUFFER FISH?

Not like the big bang at all really.

That does not even warrant a measured response. I am extremely tired of having to substitute grade-school education for debate.

Let me put it to you like this, ignoring red shift and such "proof" because there are similar possibilities for the creation and not just Christian and Jewish creation:

In the beginning there was a particle,
No one knew why the thing existed nor why it contained such enormous power but it did,
And the particle exploded and creation began and all that it did was good.

On the first day, it created more particles than grains of sand on a beach, it created light from darkness and interstellar clouds formed...need I go on?

Please do. This is fascinating.

Nobody needs a lecture on the Higgs Boson Scrabtrap.

Ok...

In the second age the particle decided it needed to separate the gas cloud into smaller gas clouds so it created space and separated the light and the dark with a vacuum.

The third age saw the creation of the planets, the particle was proud of all that it had done and but saw that the universe could not be filled with rocks and empty spaces, there had to be someone to enjoy it...

In the fourth age, the particle prepared the planets with oxygen and nitrogen and hydrogen from the nothingness of space, he created new elements because his power was infinite but the universe was still not complete.

In the fifth age the particle realised that his job was nearly done, he had prepared spheres for life and now he must add life. He created DNA from water and acid and merged it by a miracle, some say this is impossible but those are the non-believers and they have the devil (need and alternative...aliens?) in them. He looked on what he had done and lo, it was good!

On the last day the particle created complex lifeforms, most amazing of all, man, a species of clumsy and backward apes that miraculously survived for four million years to become what we are today.

I could go on right to Revelation and start the Qu'ran but cba. Hope you liked OANST, now I'll go get you some milk and you can tuck yourself in.

EDIT: Don't you like my stories Oddhunter?

I keep forgetting how easy it is just to put Strike Witch on ignore.

As a matter of fact, I should probably just start ignoring this whole thread. When Scraptrapman starts coalescing the whole Seven Days/Big Bang thing together, you know your argument has probably long-since stagnated.

Yeh, basically I'm ready to do Exoddus and Revelation!

Wait. Why did the particle suddenly become a he?? You sexist!

Sorry, shall I change it? 2nd edish and all that =)

I like how the particle is sentient.

If that's you target, STM, I've nothing to worry about in terms of this deba(te/cle), but everything to worry about your education and scientific literacy.

Particularly since you started out at the beginning to say "ignoring proof". I used to respect you but now be feel confident summing up the whole of your being into those two words.



This isn't like me, but it's been building along time, and you are unfortunate enough to be there for the blast. For years now I've argued and debated with people whose understanding of science could be represented by a great big question mark drawn in yellow crayon, yet their confidence in their understanding of it dwarfs that of Stephen Hawking. So for years I've watched as people propose to fight on my soil, and instead roll around naked in the mud expecting me to be cowed into submission by the spectacle, and in response all I can do is what their science teachers were supposed to do, and in presenting the evidence for my case do all their homework for them. They clearly weren't interested the first time around. Why then should I be interested in the impotent tirades they excrete all over my screen?

No. Why should I tolerate that? Why, when you have expressed your argument in such a tiresome and childish form as yours? Why, when you already agree that your stance is ridiculous as evidenced by your using of your sacred text as a model for ridicule? Why, when you seem to genuinely think that decades of work by thousands of scientists to unlock the greatest of mysteries can be summarised so flippantly and erroneously? What sort of bullshit is that?

I'm all for ridicule of bad ideas, but in selecting this target, which vastly exceeds the sum total intellectual achievements of the church, you have convicted yourself of such imbecility, you have no idea. It's no wonder you required the disclaimer "ignoring proof". It's the only way to equalise the arguments!

Ok you want an argument in the proof of existence of God then here goes because BM, I myself find that I have to prove his existence to other people, and unfortunately to myself because I am not exempt from the possibility that all I know is a lie, unfortunately theologists and stubborn atheists and other groups would take my belief away from me and instead install a mind numbingly boring alternative view that we die and that is it, fucking end of story, people would take that away from me in an instant to make me feel as they do.
So before I begin this reply I want you to know that I am not trying to convert you or make you see the light, I'm trying my best to hold my own and allow you respect me once again if you ever really did.
You'll have ot excuse my wording because I can't put my ideas down on paper well without having problems...

It is my belief that the Universe has infinite complexity and that it's ever changing form must be sustained by some super intelligent commanding being with enormous power, you cannot simply put the creation of the universe into the following which so many scientists feel they have proof to say, "The universe was created by the Boson particle, there was one and now the universe is enormous...red shift proves this and so it must be true!" Well ok, fair enough but how can you explain the following, The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. Do I need to explain the gravatic effect of the moon, I doubt it, you seem to know a lot about astrology.

How can that be chance, or luck or universal accident or anything else but a divine being, Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this massive explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. So is DNA not an enormous instruction manual? DNA is a three-billion-lettered manuak telling the cell to act in a certain way, that could not have formed from some isolated pool of amino acids, it could not have become emobided in a ceulluar object and it could not have survived without constant nurturing to slowly evolve and expand it's range of control over the Earth. That is impossible, all attempts to try and recreate such a phenomenon in a lab has failed.
Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. Many atheists find the issue of people believing in God bothers them greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that they don't believe even exists?! What causes them/you to do that? God is always pressing the issue. So then you have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence always upon us, always!

I am not an idiot, I hide behind childish tendencies but this is my final argument.

I'm not trying to convert you but you're wrong because I read wikipedia hail jesus

Ah, the ol' "just right" theory.

Let me ask you this: do you believe this is the only planet in the entire universe which sustains life? Do you believe this is the only universe at all?

Think of all the billions of planets devoid of life - it seems pretty obvious to me that yes, we are that random lucky coincidence.

EDIT: At this point we should just merge the Wikileaks and cogito ergo sum threads because it's like a mirror image.

tl;dr

U guys, that was for BM.

@Oddhunter, I don't know, I like to think there are aliens and other life off our own planet but perhaps they are humanoid if they are intelligence now that my friend would prove god for me 100000%

But the existence of other sentient life forms in the universe directly contradicts your earlier argument that humanity can't just be mere coincidence.

Unless, all other forms of alien life are genetically identical to humans because the evolution process does not differ from planet to planet?

You're assuming:

a) Only planets identical to earth are capable of supporting life
b) That any alien life forms must start from the same basic genetic life form humans did
c) That any alien planets capable of supporting life must develop in the same way as earth, including natural disasters and history
d) That even if all of the above conditions are met, evolution must result in the same exact species being created 100% of the time.

Your logic is full of holes.

This first quote is a few pages too late, but here goes...Ever heard of String Theory?



You've watched too much Star Wars and Doctor Who. Human-shaped aliens only exist in the form of budget-saving, not in the realms of universal likelihood.

Depends on the evolutionary processes involved in forming other aliens, we have know way of knowing if our bodies are any different to other alien sentients.

Even if they looked exactly like us, the difference in minerals or chemicals in their planet would most likely mean we would never be able to share airspace or food.

I hope I didn't screw something up X_x, but now you've got yourself another thread.

This thread is so stupid.