Just wondering what ppl think...

Lol

Hand drawn template

Ooh noice! :D

I either draw or find my own custom templates or I just add stuff

That’s noice XD

Aye

:D

Ight

yea :D

Well then

Wdym

Idk. Just bored rn

:D

Ight

Lol

Welp

well, there are a LOT more religions then Christianity, but if we were to get rid of ALLL of them, maybe we could look to science, use the Big Bang theory, or just accept the universe was always here

Idt the universe always being here makes any sense, b/c that would mean something prolly would have 2 b outside of time, which could mean we could find some place where we don’t age.
Also religion & science are not opposites, no matter what scientists (most of whom shirk their responsibility as scientists) imply.

fair enough, although, the science of the earth’s creation, VS is creaTOR is pretty different, one thinks of why, the other thinks of WHO, but ye, you’ve got a point

Also the chances of our earth being inhabitable are low. It’s a low odd that u’d have all these complex life forms in a world that just so happens to be inhabitable. Earth has way too many things that have like no chance of just randomly generating themselves, but putting them together, the chances are just ridiculously low to the point where it’s just impossible. :D

so, we’re the lucky ones

Not especially. The climate of earth has evolved as life has evolved, and life has helped shape the evolution of the climate. Where design might be evident is in the structure of atoms and their propensity to form life.

Yea, except we’re way too lucky. If u remember the coin toss thing between Sanders & Hillary in 2016, where Hillary won all 6 tosses, yeah, that’s a low odd. But our world existing would be something like if you rounded up 25,000 men & 25,000 women & had them do 25,000 coin tosses and the women won all the coin tosses. It’s not luck; it’s simply impossible. Your DNA has a specific way it has to be designed for you to live. If one thing malfunctions, u are not human. Matter of fact, if u want 2 find evidence 4 a God, study the complexity of DNA. Even Richard Dawkins says design is obvious in DNA & biology. He just doesn’t seem to want the designer to be God.

hmm, smort

Yes i was actually surprised 2 find apologetics is based off of logic, b/c that’s what u hear isn’t true. But I’ve heard this from 2 agnostics. One read Stephen C Meyer’s book and said he had 2 give up Darwinism, even though it was so beautiful to him. He says he doesn’t understand why the scientific community is so arrogant 2ward religion (even though he isn’t Christian) & feels it’s unjustified. The other (who was a PK & left the faith later) said he was an agnostic, & that atheism was an arrogant position b/c it’s not rlly provable even if it’s true.

But ya it’s an intriguing field. I’d encourage u 2 explore it.

No, it’s making a claim that one doesn’t exist.

Everyone is aware apologetics takes a conclusion, and walks you there via mental gymnastics.

The whole purpose is to try to legitimize fantasy with propaganda and pseudoscientific nonsense.

I feel pify for people who don't have the critical thinking skills to identify disinformation like apologetics.

Didn’t u just do that? U clearly have a bias. U assumed no Christians follow the process of logic. Have u heard of J Warner Wallace & Josh McDowell? Both radical atheists who investigated Scripture & became Christians b/c of it. Lee Strobel studied 2 get his wife out of Christianity & became a Christian himself. & jsyk, Strobel is the type that likes 2 c the best argument from both sides, even when he comes in with a belief. So he honestly inspected religion, even though he didn’t believe in it. Josh McDowell was mad at God at age 11, & writing Evidence that Demands a Verdict didn’t immediately make his heart want 2 follow God.

It’s not like u have 2 have a conclusion b4 u investigate 2 even be Christian. That argument is extremely presumptuous & fallacious & has no bearing on reality. I don’t fall 4 such condescending speech, b/c that’s also fallacious. What do u rlly know about the purpose of apologetics? If that’s our mission, why don’t we go around preaching the gospel of Vision, or the gospel of Thanos, or the gospel of Superman, or the gospel of Doomsday? Just b/c it’s from fantasy that was made now? Everyone knows it’s dumb to do that b/c the characters are made up.
Well, Jesus lived, and was deified (there was controversy over it) in His day. He was not made up; He was a being who performed signs & claimed deity & caused controversy about it. And then He got killed, but His word spread. If you tried 2 spread the gospel of Wonder Woman, it would nvr work.

https://apnews.com/article/65873e1b84dd4157a22643f088c806e4

Fastest growing religion in America is "none"

Your anecdotes are not impressive. Far more people are statistically losing religion.

The fastest way to becoming a non believer is to actually read the bible.

Ppl don’t determine truth. Also, many ppl that leave the faith leave for emotional reasons? like Michael Shermer.

The ppl i mentioned left or hated the faith for emotional reasons, & came back 4 evidence reasons.

People determine truth.

Science and Critical Thinking are great tools

U have clearly not seen very well-done apologetics. There are crappy apologetics, but I’m not talking about that & u’re just either throwing what u saw on all apologetics or echoing what u’ve heard from others.

It doesn't matter how well someone slings bullshit, it is still bullshit.

You can't start with a conclusion, and then use evidence to fit it.

You follow evidence to a conclusion.

Hold up. U have to not know much about DNA to say that. I have studied DNA & read books from DNA specialists. DNA appears very designed. And it isn’t even possible for DNA to come from a mutation. However, i won’t put the info about it here b/c I’d be here 4 lots of days trying. It’s heady stuff & it’s very complex.

Memeslammer like, Universe couldn't have always been there, but God could have....

This disingenuous user then explains that it is impossible to live where we do. When in fact, we live in the only place we could have lived, which has a 100% chance of happening.

Science has explained biodiversity, these old, scripted arguments are bad.

The universe isn’t a being... it doesn’t create. Us coming out of nowhere has a 0% chance of happening, especially considering the complexity of everything, including small Protozoa. Conversion of angular momentum disproves the Big Bang.

So u assume there’s an 100% chance of us being here just b/c we’re here, but then disinclude God as an option?

Where did we come from?

Conversion of angular momentum is a law, which, if the Big Bang occurred, Venus, Uranus, and Pluto disobey. Venus is the worst though. That’s more of a mathematical topic tho.

That third paragraph literally makes no sense. How can you say apologist arguments are garbage and say stuff like this? So we’re here just because we’re here and there’s no explaining past it? If that’s the case, why r u so hostile to the idea of a God in the first place? This argument states “We are, because we are.”

I briefly have, but since education is controlled by evolutionists, ppl only think something is proof if it agrees with evolution. They won’t investigate religion & just discredit all stuff related to it as garbage. Macroevolution is full of nonsense assumptions, but no one rlly pays attention to that. Have u heard of the 14 presuppositions?

Why soread fake news like this, what use is this?

Well, u can “debunk” it by calling it fake. Has no bearing on reality. U must rlly think I’m like the news media which is full of liars full of it. I ain’t.

God will use natural laws to create. Some laws we don't understand, maybe, but other we do. God could have created our universe through the big bang and created us through evolution.

You, sir, just hit a bullseye.

ye, it’s a possibility

Well, I personally don't believe in god. I think humans evolved from something, somehow. We may never find out how this universe was made. It depends on your beliefs.

The origin of the universe has already been explained by scientists. That explanation is called the "Big Bang Theory". It has never been proven that this theory is correct, but then again, neither has the existence of God (of lack thereof) been irrefutably proven.

The only question I have is, scientists are sure that there was nothing at all before the big bang. But a golden rule in science is: Nothing happens without a cause. Of nothing exists, nothing can have caused the big bang, and yet it did happen or we wouldn't be here. But in the same time the Bible also states that there was nothing in the beginning and yet God came... If there was nothing then were did God come from? And why did God even exist if there was nothing else? So basically then the same question still applies.

My understanding is that scientists do not believe there was nothing before the Big Bang. The two theories I've heard is that there was some sort of fluctuation in a quantum foam, or that this universe is inside a black hole in another universe.

That could make sense.
In my own fantasy series, ("De Kronieken van Phantasar", or "The Phantasar Chronicles") I made the implication that when Phantasar, a magical world, ceased to be, the magic energy that was released created alternate universes and KABOOM! Our universe too (and thus the big bang). No scientific ground, hey it's a fantasy story, but it was nice to work into these kinds of mysteries with a kind of "magic", hahaha...

The Big Bang theory isn’t rlly much more than a hypothesis. We can nvr rlly know if it happened. And scientists just simply “assume that it happens. But no one else was in the room where it happened.” There have been studies showing Darwin was wrong about the universe’s origin, but they’ll nvr even consider the existence of a Creator as an option, & the moral of what science is all about is to attempt 2 find truth, (thus considering all possible options). Thus they don’t approach science scientifically.

Some textbooks use disproven information, too. The book “Zombie Science” explains thoroughly how schools teach science that is outdated. He said a book written in 2014 contained something that has not even been believed by scientists since the early 90s. There are other examples.

Assumptions are a mortal sin in science... The big bang theory is based on many facts... The reason why it's unproven is because it's only highly plausible it went that way, but it's hard to prove. This goes however further than just a hypothesis. When something is only a hypothesis it would be the "Big Bang Hypothesis" and not the "Big Bang Theory"... When the Big Bang is proven the word "theory" should also be removed.

And I must thank Octavia to confriming Darwin never studied the universe, or at least not in a professional matter. Darwin was a biologist, not an astronomer. Those are very different branches of science. Oh, and the evolution theory has by the way been proven. It's just that some examples based on this theory were proven wrong, but that didn't debunk the theory itself. But Darwin's theory does not explain any origin, you can explain our origin has humans and of other living things by trying to go back in time, with this theory in your mind... But Darwin's theory only affects living beings... Not the universe itself. Darwin also never assumed things... His theory too was based on facts he noticed.

Please note, the creation of the universe by God, or by any entity like God depending on your religious background, was an assumption. Everything they couldn't explain was assumed to be the work of a god, but facts and evidence was never provided. No facts have ever been provided. The Big Bang theory came to be by knowing more than the people in the past did and turning everything we know into the most plausible outcome. It is still possible the Big Bang theory is wrong, yes, but still it's not just an assumption. It's typical how religious people blame scientists for assumptions while what they believe was an assumption from the start... Pot calling the kettle black... Sorry for putting it so bluntly. I'm not an atheist, but when it comes to evidence God exists, I can provide none... Nobody can, religious people CLAIM they can... scientists on the other hand do provide evidence on which theories are based. That does not fully prove the theory (since not all piece of evidence in a criminal case prove the suspect is guilty either), yet this evidence does make things likely. they only need more evidence to deem it fully proven, and that is what they are trying to find with their investigations. Religious people don't investigate. The Bible states God created heaven and earth, and nobody questions that... Speaking of assumptions...

spot on Octavia

First off, just b/c something’s called a theory doesn’t mean it is. In the case of the Big Bang, politics r quite involved.

Yea they do. If something suggests their idea’s wrong, they’ll either ignore it, come up w/ some other ridiculous idea, or destroy the evidence (believe it or not, one scientist actually did that).

No he didn’t, but our understanding of the universe’s origin comes from what he did.

Actually i don’t do that. I have a lot of information from lots of books, but whenever i mention simple things (b/c some of the ppl here are not fully mentally there, but I’m not talking about u). However, scientists do do that, & everyone I’ve been arguing with here has done that. No one has given me any proof of why what they believe is true. They just say that the burden of proof is all on me, & if i can’t “prove” it (ig I have to show them video evidence or something) then i should believe in the whole propaganda called the Big Bang.