epic doggo's temp back in old fashion

it's probably a small stress related injury related to nerves

you have a headache

ah yes, flawless proof

Then how come it started when I was battling it, and it ended when I lost the tempration?
I don't believe coincidences is just probability.

emotional stress leading to physical stress

I can't answer without details on what exactly youve been doing in your life, which im also not particularly interested in anyways

headaches can be caused by a variety of things, from a lack of hydration to eye strain

there are so incredibly many ways to get a headache. with it happening at that particular time, i dont see how a mystical sky daddy is more believable than a coincidence

Yet I have not done eye strain or been dehydrated, I am perfectly healthy. I haven't insulted your religion, so why should you insult mine?

Coincidences and luck can't be true, because all evidence in life and science leads to a creator. Because there can't be a big bang, or a life without a cause. So, in the beginning was there a creator, or hydrogen with no cause to it?

As i said, there are a lot of factors that can tie into a headache. i listed literally two. and i dont claim to be a doctor, i dont know all of them. all im saying is headache does not prove god.

give me the evidence please.

i also dont claim to know how the universe was created. i think its pretty f**king stupid and arrogant to think that as random ass dudes we know exactly how everything works. and anyways, the theory isnt "life without cause", the theory is life with a natural cause, not divine.

Sure, I'll give evidence and reasoning.
If the universe has a beginning, it has to have a cause, which as I said, all evidence in life and science leads to a creator. And if the universe has a beginning, it must have a cause.
Another reason is how individual cells are so small yet complicated, that in which can't be just by luck, it must lead to a creator.
Examples in nature and our life leads to the fact that life gives life, and since God is life, then that means God created life. This is also more reasonable to believe because life does not come from non-life.
If the human mind is born with morals, then that must mean that there must be a moral giver, which would be God.
Another piece of evidence is love, love can't just be a chemical reaction, because such emotion surpasses science.

Sure. It *might* have to have a cause. But it having to have a cause does not directly point to whatever your religion is being correct. a cause does not necessarily mean theres a "creator", or that theres anything conscious controlling anything. this is another example of people being arrogant and thinking they know things, there is a VERY good chance in my opinion that whatever caused it is simply beyond our current understanding of science, physics, etc. And i still dont see how this piece of evidence points to your religion being correct beyond any speculation.

"Cells are small and complicated, so there must be a creator". That doesnt make much sense whatsoever, I fail to see how something being small and intricate means it had to be made purposefully by a conscious being.

"Examples in nature and our life leads to the fact that life gives life, and since God is life, then that means God created life". We are not questioning whether this theoretical god made life or not, we are questioning this god's existence in the first place, I fail to see the relevance here.

"Life does not come from non-life". What evidence and/or fact is this based on? I see no reason why the right combination of inorganic matter cant construct something progressively more organic.

"If the human mind is born with morals, then that must mean that there must be a moral giver". Again, not necessarily true I think. I don't think theres anything that really points to morals being anything beyond a fabrication of the human mind. They are subjective in the first place, and the idea of there even being such objective good, evil, right, and wrong aligns with there being a higher power in the first place, which again, we are still trying to prove. You cant site something from the same source youre trying to verify in the first place.

I also dont see how love cant be a chemical reaction. And im not sure what you mean by it "surpassing science", could you elaborate on how love is in any way special compared to any other emotion in this sense?

Also, sorry if i came across as rude or disrespectful previously, i am enjoying the conversation

alright back to the debate
As I come to realize, I have been rewording some of my statements, and your responses to my second and fourth do make sense, so I will not cover those responses as we are still proving the existence of God.

"I fail to see how something being small and intricate means it had to be made purposefully by a conscious being." That is a good point, but then again, the observable universe is so big that looking at us is almost the same as cells. Think of math, for example. We have simply discovered it because nature has been with us since the beginning. If God is considered an infinite being, and math has infinite knowledge, then that must be one of many evidences for God.

"I see no reason why the right combination of inorganic matter cant construct something progressively more organic." This is also true, but it does bring back to my point of how this is not an accident or just a coincidence. Another argument is how we humans manipulate the materials around us to create things, which could also be how humans use inorganic matter to create something that is organic. That is another example of God.

"could you elaborate on how love is in any way special compared to any other emotion in this sense" I had used love because it was used repeatedly in the bible, but I can tell how any emotion does surpass science. I will use an example from nihilism, but do correct me if nihilism is not the same as athiesm. If life has no meaning, why don't you just kill yourself? Because if any emotion you have, whether being sad or happy, then there is no point to keep on living, because life has no meaning.

Thats true, in fact I have an (extremely outlandish with little to no supporting evidence) theory that matter might be infinitely divisible, and therefore perhaps there are civilizations on much smaller bits of matter. Anyways, math isnt something we humans "discovered". We invented it. Math isnt some cosmic force that enacts things on the world, math is just our way of rationalizing it, categorizing it, and understanding it. Same thing as science. I also wouldn't say that math has infinite knowledge, its quite finite im pretty sure. People continue to expand upon it all the time, im sure we are far from having a flawless understanding of math or science.

Thats true, organic things CAN come from intelligent thinking beings, but that doesn't mean it MUST come from them. I would say that there is as much of a chance as any other explanation if not more than that of god.

Oooo okay i really like talking about philosophy. So, no. nihilism and atheism are not the same thing. Atheism is just the belief that there is no higher power. (Technically I would be considered an agnostic I think, since I believe that theres no possible way to tell what happens after death, what brought us here, or if there is a god, HOWEVER I still believe that the most likely option is that there is no such thing, and what some evidence already points to.) Nihilism stems from the idea that life is inherently meaningless, and that theres no reason to keep going since its worthless anyways. Another philosophy, existentialism, states that we as humans are to make our own meaning in life. But i don't align myself with either of these. My favorite philosophy is that of absurdism. Absurdism goes off the idea that life is inherently meaningless, similar to nihilism. Except, absurdism is about understanding this about the world and choosing to live anyways. Choosing to experience what you can experience while you can in your short mortal life, recognizing and embracing the absolute absurdity of existence and enjoyin it all the while. Rolling our boulders, so to speak.

After some research, I find that math is something we have both invented and discovered. An example of this is 1 + 1 = 2, this is a mathematical truth, and we can't invent anything to change it into three. Yes, what you said is true, but the way that people continue to expand math is also another way of people discovering new things. I believe math is one of the many knowledges of God because the order and design of the stars and gravity is something that we discovered. I do believe it is the same thing as science as well.

That is also true, I would have more answers to that in the Bible, such as Genesis 1:1, however as you said, I can't cite evidence from the source I am trying to prove (even though this is written by other people 2,000 years ago and not from God, I still accept the "challenge".) However, Charles Darwin stated that if something is irreducibly complex, the idea of sheer probability falls apart.

That does make sense, but many Christians, including me, believes that this world is a test on where you are going to be. However, my "philosophy" so to speak, is to make as much as a beneficial as possible, since change is only constant in this life.

I would argue that it only becomes math when we assign the equation 1 + 1 = 2 to an event. Having two apples isnt math, but calculating that you do have two apples is. I think. I could be entirely wrong in this, but thats what makes sense to me.

Interesting, havent heard that quote. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that something being alive would be considered "irreducibly complex".

Thats an understandable thing to believe, at least as far as religion goes. Ive already made my own thoughts clear on allat

It's night at my time so I'll be sure to reply to this tomorrow

cool

gn, sleep well

more than probability* i should say

That does make sense in some case.

Something being alive would be considered irreducibly complex because as said before, cells have many informations, organs have many uses, etc. Same thing for life in general, there are many species on this one world, and we still have yet to discover new ones, that could be considered irreducibly complex.

that would certainly be considered complex, of course its complex. but maybe not irreducibly so? while there is a lot, and it is quite complex, i dont think its beyond categorizing

True, however the concept of life would be considered irreducibly complex because of evolution, new species, etc. Either that, or we don't know the concept of irreducibly complex.

but that idea of evolution is reducible. its something that can be followed down the evolutionary tree, and simplified. followed to its roots so to speak

True, however we do not know the origins of life, and how it came to Earth to begin with. Sure, we can trace where evolution came from, but we do not know how it was created, or where it began. There is also many theories that life started earlier, which was not on Earth. I believe that does make it irreducibly complex.

Im pretty sure that quote about irreducible complexity was not stated by darwin, it is an argument against evolution quoted by michael behe, but im not too sure on the history.

The argument is typically utilized to state that various organs (such as the eye for example) are irreducibly complex. The definition of irreducibly complex structure is, as im doing research, a structure that has complicated pieces that work together and cant function without all of them.

looking through some other summaries of the argument, these are the basic ideas that are supposed to prove god:

1. Some biological features are irreducibly complex: removing one part will cause the full feature to cease function.

2. For a biological feature to be selected in evolution, it must be functional.

3. Therefore, evolution must have selected for multiple parts of a feature at the same time. This is extremely improbable.

A biological feature however, doesnt necessarily need to be functional to be selected in evolution. Something that doesnt actively augment an organism can still enter the gene pool to be utilized and mutated later. This means that these aspects can eventually find a functioning place in the organism even if they werent made that way in the first place. And if these mutations proved NEGATIVE to the organism, that organism will have a lower chance of surviving and thus a lower chance of spreading that gene.

The main argument against behe is that nothing in nature is irreducibly complex

A main flaw in behe's idea is that it lacks imagination. Just because you can't see exactly how something evolved also doesnt mean nature simply didn't. Its an unprovable absolute. The good old "i dont quite understand how this happened, so it was god".

There is no living proof of an irreducible structure either, structures claimed to be irreducible have been found to evolve in labs by themselves (In the Long Term E-coli Experiment). It needed three separate traits to function, all of which evolved anyways. Things claimed to be irreducible can and have evolved.

What temptations?

lust

Don't say u wanna post porn like the rest of them

no like masturbation