Religion Debates and Discussions

This doesn't really dissuade him from his point. All he meant was that, in his opinion, nothing that was said was done with ill intention in the thread, and thus it wasn't necessary to try to calm it down.
I'd disagree with him on that, and say that regardless of intention, insults shouldn't be used at all. That doesn't mean that his point isn't valid, it's just that different people have different gauges of what's acceptable in a debate.

I don't know what atheists you've encountered, but regardless of creed, everyone should know that the universe is a very delicate balance between many distinct forces.
It's worth noting that yes, you did actually frame that in the context of "how do we know God exists."

I understand that the universe is highly ordered, but I also believe that that piece of evidence isn't proof of a higher power, or of intelligent design.

Again, the same question can be asked about a God creating the universe with intelligent design. How could an intelligent being or deity create the near-infinite complexity of a probably infinite universe? How could infinite tasks be done in finite time? That holds an equal amount of weight towards disproving a god as the analogous question holds toward proving one.

Don't worry about being late to a point. If I'm unclear about something, it's better to be clear later than to not be clear at all.

 

You're problem lies with him then not the thread. I stand by what I said that this thread has been a major success in that regard. Your assertion that we're ganging up on him is off base.

 

So is morality fundamentally arbitrary? If God had said that rape was morally good, would it be morally good?

 

I would like to mention that certain Atheists here have forced that point often that the universe is random and everything about it... Random.

 

I don't like to pretend crazy people aren't crazy. If Gehenna would be a little less of a brick wall when it comes to reasonable debate, maybe I wouldn't need to say such things.

1. Gehenna can you go google the definition of religion then come back to me with whether or not you think science is a religion.
2. "Who developed those facts". The facts have ALWAYS existed. Facts are true regardless of human interference. All science does is tries to understand and explore the way our world is.
3. Without religion, you'd be a Naazi. See how annoying it is when you make random claims about people's beliefs without backing them up?
4. Gehenna, I don't generally think much about the "religion of science" when I'm not debating you or other creationists. In fact, I'd say that Physics class and here are the only places that I really discuss the virtues of science. So I don't what the f*ck you're talking about when you say science gives my life meaning. Science is a tool with which I show retards like you how retarded they are. That's it.
5. I don't know any such thing about Pastaferanism. If you'd like to debate the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd be really really happy to do so. I'll give the same vague moronic answers you do.
6. Gehenna, when it comes to punishment, you have to understand that there's like a spectrum, right? If your parents give you a time-out, I'd say the punishment is your fault and it's probably a fair one in certain situations. But if your parents torture you, like one might be tortured in Hell, are they still good people? Is the torture still your fault? At what point do atrocities committed as "punishments" stop being OK?
7. Except there was never any real proof of the flat Earth and I think you know that.
8. Gehenna, this last point I have to make is about something that I find actually kind of funny and sadly ironic. You know why the Internet works, why your computer or laptop or whatever works? Because they're based on scientific principles that people discovered using SCIENCE. If you want to act like science is just another religion with no real claim to being the "truth" well then fine. But in that case you should get rid of any electrical or modern devices you have in your house and go and live as a fking hermit in some hut somewhere without central heating because that's what life would be like if smart people hadn't used the principles of science to discover electricity and radio waves and all that awesome stuff we know exists and helps us live the modern lives we do.

9. A more personal question that I really hope you'll answer. Have you ever actually read a biology book? Or any book on science that isn't biased towards creationism? Did you get taught evolution in school?

Hey remember when Gehenna said he'd molest a sleeping girl if he thought he could get away with it?

I 'member...

I mean, I THINK the universe is kind of random at its core, but we don't really know. And you know what? That's OK. In science there are many things we know (the earth is flat, evolution happened) but there are some things we don't and we don't feel the need to fill that void with mumbo-jumbo from 0 AD.

 

That's because it most likely is.
Maybe the misunderstanding here is you're seeing our use of the word "random" to mean "messy." That's not how I (at least) have been using the word. I use "random" to mean simply that there was no interference with it.
I can acknowledge the delicateness of the universe while still seeing its randomness. Just google "rock formations" and you'll see some perfect examples. Some of the things that occur naturally on Earth without human interference are stunningly perfect in their balance and complexity. Basically everyone acknowledges that these formations are just the result of natural erosion, and weren't interfered with.
The universe isn't entirely regimented, either. Take the CMB, for example. I don't think anybody would argue that it looks very organized.

Maybe the point I was making with the post you first quoted didn't come across clearly enough.
What I'm saying is that, with any starting conditions, any universal physical constants, any state of the universe, this argument would be equally as invalid. If the elementary charge were 5% stronger, the universe would change to meet that standard. Any life in that universe then would say "I can't imagine what it would be like living with 5% weaker elementary charge!" Life would evolve in any possible universe where it could evolve, by the very nature of infinity. It's illogical to use the physical constants of the universe as proof for a deity because any other constants would be met and lived in by whatever life lived in that universe.

You used the example of gravity. You said that it's been shown that were gravity only 6 orders of magnitude stronger than it is, stars would be a billion times less massive and would live a million times faster.
First of all, this isn't very surprising. 6 orders of magnitude is a lot. It's a factor of one million, which is an understandably large number. If the speed of light were 6 orders of magnitude shorter, the observable universe would be 46,600 light years in radius. That's really, really short, on an astronomical scale. How short? To put it in perspective, we would be able to see exactly one galaxy. That's it. No more. They just wouldn't exist to us beyond that one example. Not because we wouldn't have the technology to see them, but because the light from the galaxies would not have had enough time to reach us until 23,400 years from now. That's ridiculous to think about. We probably wouldn't have enough evidence to say that the one galaxy we could see was anything more than just a one-off, weird occurrence. In comparison, there are at least 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe now, because expansion of space is proportional to the square of the scaling factor. One million is a lot, when to comes to altering our physical laws by scales.
To put it in perspective another way, it would take light from the sun nearly 15 years to reach Earth, as compared to the approximately 8 1/3 minutes it takes in this universe.

Second of all, it's not hard to imagine that life could still begin around stars in your proposed universe with stronger gravity. It would happen very similarly to how it happens around our sun. Because smaller stars live for longer, it would probably be less likely to happen around larger stars, as only 10,000 years surely isn't enough time for life to evolve. Stars like red dwarfs can live for upwards of one trillion years, and in this universe, they'd live for upwards of one million. Planets can form really close to their star even in this universe, and stars would form even closer in that one, because the force of gravity would be stronger. This is maybe enough time for very rudimentary life to form on a planet, although it's unlikely that enough that intelligent life would evolve. That life would continue to thrive on its planet, in the same way we do on Earth. For the sake of argument, let's say that intelligent life does defy the odds and an intelligent life form analogous to humans exists. This life form would probably look at the universe it lives in and think that it's amazing that life exists in such a delicate balance of forces. It would say "wow, how could a universe with any weaker gravity than this exist?" Just as we say "wow, how could live exist in a universe with stronger gravity than this one?"
It's also possible that the extra energy packed into every planet would be enough to counteract the relatively small amount of time life would have to exist. Plus, since planets would form faster with stronger gravity, it's hard to say for sure.

This point you bring up is also one reason that I think that the multiverse theory is worth considering. While it isn't testable, and therefore isn't a theory in the scientific sense, it does explain the universe. It says there could be multiple universes, each of which has its own unique set of fundamental "rules." Life would only evolve in those universes where it could evolve, thus negating the need for a deity.
Before you ask why I'm looking for things that ignore a deity, and why I can't just accept a God, here's why. If I accepted that a God created the universe this way, I would have to accept the other things that come with a God, like that the Earth isn't actually 4.5 billion years old, that humans lived with dinosaurs, etc. for which there is not only no evidence in support, but there is direct evidence to the contrary.
Accepting a God because of one thing means I need to accept the things that have been proven false that come with that God.

Sources:
https://www.space.com/23772-red-dwarf-stars.html
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_galaxy_info.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/how-long-do-stars-live-stars-die/ (probably not exactly what one would look for for high-level scientific research, but it works for this purpose)

 

Lots to read I might try to forumlate a response once I have processed it all.

Okay for the sake of keeping things as honest as possible I don't think I can respond to everything revolving the fundamental constants. Science isn't typically my strong suit so a lot of this goes over my head and I don't want to resort to guessing.

Here is what I think is important. Call it convenient if you wish, but Catholicism has always stated that Evolution is a viable and a possible way to explain the creation of the universe. So yes I believe the world is very old, how old? Well, I think I will just leave that to the people who have the tools and equations to figure it out. And if we believe that the world is very old then no it is unlikely that humans lived with dinosaurs. There are a lot of misconceptions about Catholisism and that is a major one.

I know this proabaly isn't the reply you were looking for especially since you put a lot of time )I assume) into that response.

I think of you are really trying to "help" Gehenna then you would start acting like you cared about his well being rather then calling him a "brick." Sorry, but I really doubt your good intentions towards him and other Christians.

 

So it wasn't His decision that hurting other people was bad, it was something more fundamental?

 

AaaaaaaaAaaaaAAAAAaaAaAH!

GEHENNA

You're actually saying that a sin on the level of coveting your neighbour's nice car is on the level of killing 6 billion people????

what in the actual f*ck is the Christian God thinking letting 6 billion people's worth of sin exist when he's ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING?

I mean good thing Sin is a construct to get you to come back and give money to churches or the world would clearly be absolutely, totally, completely f*cked and would be entirely the fault of God for not stopping it instantly with his ALL POWERFUL godliness and his ALL KNOWING wisdom, and not the fault of those two people who didn't know enough to not eat the apple God left out in the open and pointed out.

 

I appreciate the response. Even though I did take a lot of time for the response, this is what debates are for. Discussions of ideas brought up is what this whole thread is about, and so I'm glad I'm getting a good discussion.

While the Bible never explicitly says "here's how old the Earth is," it does give a lineage of humanity. As https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/ puts it, God put a "birth certificate" in the Bible. using only the information contained in the Bible,, the Earth comes out at about 6,000 years old.

Plus, since God created Adam on the fifth day (right?), and humans have lived ever since, dinosaurs would have to have lived for a total of at most four days for them to have not lived with humans. But the Bible also says that God created all of the animals (which undoubtedly includes dinosaurs) on this sixth day. Thus, humans lived with dinosaurs.

All use of the word "dinosaur" is used to mean the big scary lizards that went extinct, and not technical dinosaurs like birds.

 

This is where Catholic and a lot of the other Protestant denominations differ. We believe that the beginning chapters of Genesis were not meant to be a historic document but instead a way to show that God did create the universe. Essentially, we believe that if God did create the universe by days then each day was much longer than the average day like millions or more years per day. Or that the progression of days was just an easy way to follow the way of the creation of the universe and that God created the Big Bang or Evolution. As far as us Catholics are concerned it isn't so much important how the universe was created, but that it was created by God. That's of course not to say that we don't care about how the universe was created but we value the creator more so than the means.

 

But the idea that animals were created chronologically after humans still remains.
It also seems that plenty of creationist websites do claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together:
http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/
https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/live-with-humans/

It seems like a more modern approach to creation is to say that Genesis was more like a metaphor than a historical account, and that the events in it aren't to be taken literally. This is one interpretation, but the fact remains that many Christians do believe that the Earth is ~6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
I'd say that saying that Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived together is not a misconception, per se, but is rather just a large generalization. Saying that all Christians believe that would be a misconception, but I've met and am friends with Christians who don't think that, so believe me when I say that I don't think all Christians believe that.

 

i would spend my life serving him if i had the answers and the evidence that he was here.
but there is no evidence, so i'm not going to risk my entire life pleasing someone who may or may not be there.

thats wasting my afterlife* lol you need to think before you hit "post reply"

6. if u dont spank ur children they are going to become spoiled. fact.

agree with the rest

 

As with everything else here, I'd ask for evidence or support before calling something a fact.
Unless you're making a joke in which case I'm an idiot

 

look at our generation today, and look at the past generations. most of our parents felt the sting of a belt on their ass as a child; most of us do not.
i, for one, was hit with a very thin stick and F*CK that hurt like a b*tch.

obviously it's not 100%, but if you don't hit your child, you're not really disciplining them. when was the last time you saw a "timeout" work?

i'm not talking about toddlers either; im talking about children.
this article, for instance, says you shouldn't spank toddlers (for the most part):
http://www.parenting.com/article/is-it-okay-to-spank

and i do agree with that.

i suppose i also used spanking as a pretty general term; i think you should physically discipline your child, but i don't think you should try and ****ing murder them...nor do i think you should give them "timeouts". what would a timeout teach? if anything it'll teach the kid patience

anyways, for the articles:

source i agreed with for the most part:
http://time.com/3387226/spanking-can-be-an-appropriate-form-of-child-discipline/
i especially liked this paragraph:

Spoiler: paragraph

Generally speaking, we advise parents that corporal discipline should only be applied in cases of willful disobedience or defiance of authority—never for mere childish irresponsibility. And it should never be administered harshly, impulsively, or with the potential to cause physical harm. Along those lines, we caution parents who have a hard time controlling their temper to choose alternative forms of discipline. There is never an excuse or an occasion to abuse a child.

source that i kind of agreed with but at the same time some of the points are stupid:
http://madamenoire.com/40373/8-reasons-to-spank-your-kids/
i liked reasons 2, 4, and 5. i found the rest pretty stupid, honestly; wouldn't really trust this source too much...

i think that you should only spank or hit your kids when these situations arise:
the child is willingly trying to harm you
the child is willingly attempting to disobey you - to put it simply - "stop yelling at your sister." "no youre not the boss of me" "ILL SHOW YOU WHOS THE ****ING BOSS"

i don't really think you should beat a child for accidentally cracking your iphone screen or whatever...
kids will be kids. but disobedient kids need punishment.

 

You've said all sins are equal right? Well Sorry but it worries me when hardcore evangelicals want to be cops, there are definitely different degrees of evil and if you're in law enforcement you need to recognize this. Little Jimbob lying to his mom about finishing supper is not as bad as a school shooting.

 

And Gehenna claims to care about our eternal souls or whatever and then tells us how we're dying inside. I wish Gehenna to be healed of his ignorance with all my heart but I'm not gonna treat him like a five-year-old.

Um, a thousand holocausts? So committing adultery is as bad as killing 6 billion people? I don't want to play the "Jewish card" all the time but I wish my grandfather who escaped from Poland in the 1930s was still alive so he could punch you right in your smug f*cking face. This is worse than that time that you said that you'd rape someone if you thought God wasn't gonna know about it.

Also, five more questions, now that I've gotten over your statements:

1. So we should still fight climate change, right? Just because it's caused by sin it doesn't mean we're free to let it happen?
2. Can you explain how comitting adultery is as bad as killing 6 billion people?
3. Why weren't you taught evolution in school? Isn't it compulsory? God, the state of North Carolina is really letting its students down.
4. Why do you claim evolution is false if you've never read about it or bothered to understand it? If you use the word "God" or anything about God in your answer, then it's not really meaningful. If evolution is truly false, you should be able to prove its falsity without invoking your religion.
5. Can you try answer more of my questions please? I wrote like 9 and you answered like 2. I mean of course it's up to you but it's almost as if you don't have answers and you're trying to run away from the truth...

i very much disagree. what does physical violence teach children other than that violence is ok in certain situations? What does spanking do for their character that other punishments won't? I was never spanked and I know I can't be the best judge of whether or not I'm "spoiled" but I really don't think I am... neither are most people I know whose parents haven't hit them.

^^this

Bible literalists like Gehenna should be banned from serving as police, because they clearly have no regard for basic human morality or shared reality. I wouldn't want to be protected by someone who believes in magic, doesn't care about what's true, and thinks that petty theft and genocide are comparable crimes.

This response is so weird to me.

Gehenna: Every bad thing is as bad as the Holocaust
BAWSS5: What? That's moronic!
Gehenna: I know, right?

(paraphrased)