If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software! The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Whether or not a god exists doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not supposed god interacts with mankind and what the nature of those interactions are.
We can say with relative certainty that god does not regularly meddle in human affairs. We know this because we do not ever record supernatural behavior either on the macroscopic or microscopic scale. Were a god interfering we should at least occasionally see nature behaving in ways that violate the laws of physics. We literally NEVER see this EVER.
Were god hiding his behavior by cloaking it as natural phenomenon, then said behavior would have to take the form of said phenomenon, thus negating the godly activity. We already have natural phenomena that behave like natural phenomena.
The other possibility is that god does exist and simply doesn't interact at all. In either the "cloaking" scenario or the "isolationist" scenario, one conclusion can be easily made: A god who will not or does not interact in human affairs is operatively no different from a god who does not exist.
I cannot prove god does or does not exist, but I have demonstrated that god does not routinely meddle in the affairs of mankind in a discernible way.
So we can conclude god is a faggot, but not a bigger one than op.
>>578998438 Even if life can only come from life, which has been disproven, that has nothing to do with a transcendent god. It could be literally anything, then. It doesn't get you any closer to a god, faggot.
"we don't know therefor god did it" isn't an argument.
>>578998438 "Something" greater than ourselves must be out there (even if it's right in front of our eyes and we just don't know it), but it doesn't have to be "God" and assuming you "know" what is actually out there is arrogant, egotistical, and just plain stupid. It could literally be anything, and I refuse to "believe" in something that I have no proof of. This is why I'm agnostic.
>>578997635 because being agnostic isn't a stance to take. I assume you mean agnostic atheist. it's the same as asking if you think my name is bob. you probably doubt it but can't know for sure so you're an agnostic abobist.
Because I don't believe in ghosts either. The complete absence of evidence for the extraordinary claim just makes me want to write it off. Otherwise I'd have to be agnostic about windigos and other such nonsense. You can't just make shit up and expect me to buy into it. You're not agnostic about Zeus or Thor. Think about it.
Every single person on earth is technically agnostic because no one knows for a fact whether or not there's a god. So, Christians and Atheists alike are all agnostic on top of whatever else they claim to be.
>>578997814 this (A)theism is whether or not you believe in god, not whether or not you can know god to be real, or not. Agnosticism is simply an acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge. Saying you're agnostic is like saying nothing at all. We're all agnostic, cunt.
" One society will condemn those who believe in God, and another society will condemn those who do not. They are both the same. Both are slaves to a belief. To be free from all conditioning is not to seek a better conditioning. I think that is the real crux of the matter, because it is only when the mind is unconditioned that it can tackle the problem of living as a total process.
Why do you believe in God? What is a belief? You do not believe in something which is obvious, like the sunshine, like the person sitting next to you; you do not have to believe. Whereas, your belief in God is not real. It is some hope, some idea, some preconceived longing which may have nothing to do with reality. If you do not believe, but really become aware of that reality in your life, as you are aware of sunshine, then your whole conduct of life will be different. At present, your belief has nothing whatever to do with your daily life; so, to me, whether you believe in God or not is immaterial.
So, to be a theist or an atheist, to me, are both absurd. If you knew what truth is, what God is, you would neither be a theist nor an atheist, because in that awareness belief is unnecessary. It is the man who is not aware, who only hopes and supposes, that looks to belief or to disbelief, to support him, and to lead him to act in a particular way." J. Krishnamurti
>>578999873 inanimate and inorganic are not antonyms. for one, no molecule is "animate". macrostructures are animate. molecules are not; they just behave according to extremely well-established, albeit complicated, physical and chemical laws. and, we've already got self-assembling ribozymes that can engage in spontaneous and efficient self-replication of themselves. your footing is losing ground.
Believing or not believing is completely irrelevant, shouting about your belief or impinging on other people's lives is the only problem.
The problem with organised religion is something I like to call 'drowning man syndrome', If you saw a person drowning and where a moral person, you would try and save them, even if it put your life in danger...organised religion replaces life with soul...puts it at a higher premium and puts dogma into that equation. Thats the root cause of the majority of this worlds bullshit.
The simple fact is that the existence of a supreme will never be established.
Religion is just a man made organisation to make sense of life. You dont need it to believe in a supreme nor does believing in a supreme make you any less of a scientist. Some view science as the only tool available to understand the supreme.
>>579000770 Look up organic chemistry. If you're discussing organic and inorganic molecules the discussion is entirely about organic vs. inorganic chemistry. The etymology of the word organic is entirely missing the point.
The difference between organic and inorganic molecules is, as I said before: Organic molecules have Carbon in them, inorganic molecules do not. End of discussion. Debating the word organic and not the field is missing the point.
>>579001208 his intellect doesn't make any difference. the etymology of a word, as >>579001193 said, does not necessarily have any bearing on how the word is applied in a modern context. especially in the sciences, the necessity of properly defining words is apparent and organic is absolutely, irrefutably tied singly to the presence of carbon. read any chemistry, biology, physics, or medicine textbook published in the last century.
>>578997635 We can't prove god exists but we have contradicted the bible many times. We've proven life before man although the bible says otherwise We've proven that there is space not a heaven, even though the bible says the sky is heaven We've proven the earth is more than 5000 years old even though the bible says otherwise
The bible and all religions were made to govern people lives. Would you die for your country in the promise there is an afterlife? But whats to stop suicides? Make a hell in which suicide is a one way ticket. So money to the Church and a lifetime of obedience! Look at Isis and the like! "Die by war and get into heaven" I'm not saying there is or isn't a god or gods but all current ones are wrong!
>>579000065 "a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach." -the Wikipedia article
this just further proves that life can't be born from nothing: if this cell was the source of all life, how come we don't see examples of it today? if this cell suddenly burst into existence from a couple of stray chemicals mixing, why hasn't it happened naturally since? the mere fact that the cell has to be created in a lab further emphasizes the requirement for an intelligent creator in the genesis of life.
>>579001917 organic is a term principally applied to chemistry. wherein, and as you used it, it applies to molecules that contain carbon. it makes no note of organization. it literally has nothing to do with chaos theory, or Turing, or cow's markings. and, if you've read so many books on the subject then i'm sure you'll be familiar with extremely basic chemistry.
>>579001926 we are trying to understand how it could happen naturally and demonstrate it in the lab, just because we haven't shown it yet doesn't mean it's impossible. Just look at the technological advances in science in the last 100 years.
Once we do understand it we just fill in another gap where you put a "god"
Huxley - "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
>>579002247 just google "organic chemistry". you talked about molecules. molecules fall under chemistry as a field of study. so the application of the term "organic" is thereby to chemistry. where, it always means "containing carbon". what is so complicated about that to you?
>>579001926 It doesn't prove the process to be impossible at all. If a cell identical to the first cell were to be synthesised spontaneously in nature it would be undetectable and unable to compete with all the more advanced life in abundance. It could be happening quite commonly on the planet and you would have no chance of observing it due to all the uncontrolled variables.... Hence lab tests. If scientists succeeded in accomplishing that goal then it means this: It is possible.
If they determine a set of conditions in which it will and will not work then maybe we can discuss the requirement of an intelligent creator or most likely some kind of natural catalyst such as incredibly high temperatures.
I'm Christian just because I like to have faith in something that's better than here. Shit can be shit and it's nice to be able to be like "yo God why is that" and I just feel like someone always has my back when I'm alone and I just can be like "okay God it's gonna get better look out for me dawg" It's all about faith.
Just because you where concentrating on one(very simple) part of the system...does not meen everyone else has to concentrate on it...though I guess I could of read the whole of this thread...but why would I do that just to satisfy your ego?
>>579003241 it literally has nothing to do with my ego. instead, it has everything to do with the definition of the word organic as you used it in your own sentence. and you weren't making any point. i'm almost certain you're just saying things to read your own text on the screen by now. and, you literally just needed to read your own, original post and our replies to one another to understand. nothing else.
>>579003543 wow, please oh great enlightened one, tell me what your point has been through this entire thread. Make one firm conclusion that lesser beings can 'get a grip' on...your statements have been slapdash and your conclusions 'fuzzy', change that and then folks will know what your saying.
>>579002828 i've neglected to comment on all your misspellings, grammatical errors and discontinuities of syntax out of respect for our argument. but to imply that i am young, or not a native english speaker, based on how i've composed my points is actually laughable when you misspelled the word "really" as "reaaly" when you had it correctly spelled, as reference, a single space away. engaging in ad hominem is something more disrespectful and juvenile than anything you could've gleamed from my manner of speaking.
>>579003280 That wasn't my point at all. My point was that if laboratory tests prove that living cells can be synthesised from chemical compounds then that does not prove that life requires an "intelligent creator" to form from those compounds. It only proves that the process is possible. Until the process is shown to be impossible or if the process is shown to be possible and the conditions for it to occur cannot naturally occur then you cannot make conclusions about whether there is or is not an "intelligent creator" from those tests.
>>578997635 can't disprove the tooth fairy either, doesn't mean i entertain the possibility of a tiny winged woman with a creepy fetish lifting my pillow and giving me money every time a part of my body falls off
>inb4 you can't say for CERTAIN that doesn't happen, yes i fucking can
>>578997635 Do you believe in fairies? No? Prove it! Do you believe there's a perfect little china tea cup orbiting mars that's too small to detect and we have no evidence for? No? Prove it!
If you're gonna be agnostic, you have to be the same for every conceivable thing that cannot be disproven. Feel free, but it's totally impracticle. It seems more reasonable to say that belief does not require proof or absolute certainty
In any scientific sense of the word I am, but that means being agnostic about all possible gods/creator beings/ non-deity creation potentials not better explained by natural law. Seeing as the probabiity of any one of those things as being true is extremely low as well as the natural laws holding far more stalwart in the face of falsification I tend to proclaim myself as quite thoroughly atheist to any deity belief systems.
I keep my mind open to the possibility but don't bother contemplating it long, low probability events are best left for thought experiments and rarely for scientific inquiry, especially events as low probability as a deity.
Now I understand where your points are coming from.
In that context your dealing with 'the wizard of oz', seeing behind the curtain of certain parts of the creation myth...your applying 21stC analasis to genesis in relation to proof that God created life and therefore if we can then there is no god...thats jibberish...
His argument was proving that life can be synthesised from chemical compounds in a lab shows that an intelligent creator is required for life. His statements implied a creator, by which he was referring to humanity. My points were that demonstrating the possibility of a process means absolutely nothing past whether it is or isn't possible and under which conditions.
ok hai so, every1 in this thread 1/3 of you an hero 2/3 of you partake in 1 of you trying to kill somebody and the other standing in the way of the person trying to be killed thus sacrificing yourself and granting you access to heaven (if one exists)
Then if heaven exists, go on interwebs and post back results on /b/ your ID will show if your up there or not.
If we determine a set of variables that require intervention by man to perform in order for a photocell to become "organic" then it is still life giving birth to life. If it happens spontaneously without our help then I'll change my view. As it stands life gives birth to life and that must be disproved.
>>579004613 I mean the idea that the universe was nothing and began at some point or was created, both are just different ways of saying the same thing, they don't know yet and should continue searching for answers.
Agnostic-Atheist: Does not know for sure that god exists, but doesn't believe in it Agnostic-Theist: Does not know for sure that god exists, but believe in it Agnostic: Dumb cunt who thinks he's superior because he's indecisive about his own beliefs.
>>579004628 That is not what I said at all. Let's go back to the part where I was pointing out errors in someone else's way of thinking.
He was discussing laboratory tests on the validity of a natural process (living things coming from non-living chemical compounds).
My point boils down to this: If we can show that A turns into B in a lab it doesn't mean that our involvement was required for A to turn into B. This means that the fact that A can turn into B, which we just demonstrated, has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is an intelligent creator.
I literally said that the success or failure of one particular type of test means absolutely nothing to the debate. Stop misinterpreting things and trying to decide other peoples positions for them. I am correcting poor thought processes not providing you which my own.
>>579005407 one must ask though how long the time period before the big bang was if there is in fact a possibility of god it almost guarantees he exists due to the fact probability isnt a matter of chance rather a matter of time given enough time its possible that god exists
>>579004930 It's not a classification. It's a definition. "Organic Chemistry" is the branch of chemistry dealing with Carbon. An "Organic Molecule" has carbon in it. When you wish to discuss molecules you are in the realm of chemistry. In the realm of chemistry that is what the word organic means and there is no grey area.
If you attempt to apply the word to both molecules and things on a macroscale at the same time then you are using it incorrectly and your argument needs to be reworded.
That is your misunderstanding of chemistry, not a semantic debate.
>>578997635 I don't believe there is a God, or a God like in the bible/kuran/whatever. But I can't prove it. In that aspect my atheism could also be called agnostic. But for that matter, theists could also be called agnostics. Whatever, I just don't care about gods or things like that.
>>579005383 My idea or understanding of the universe is that it has always existed and will continue to exist until it ceases to exist, like matter and molecules that eventually decay back into energy only to be consumed by something else, or a seed growing to a tree and making more seeds that grow into more trees infinity until something stops the process.
>>579006127 i believe everyone literally live in their own universe. basically anyone i havent physically met doesnt exist. the internet, wireless communication, etc. basically connect other universes without having to actually be infront yhe person. its hard to explain when im so tired...
>>579006450 Of course not, that's what they will say, yeah. But what I mean is that although they are not likely to admit it, they can't ever prove their god and they will forever live in ''doubt'' (even though they ''believe'') that their god exists/is real, thus my conclusion that everyone is an agnost.
>>579006379 Even this guy has a valid theory or understanding of existence, though by your logic I could say I created everything and you couldn't prove me wrong either, sounds like a paradox to me. Isn't there already a existence theory based on paradoxical concepts.
>>579006708 yea and like whenever you see people irl their universe is just briefly crossing paths with yours. or potentially running into each other causing your two universe to travel similar paths i guess. like i said, hard to explain.
realistically though no one knows for sure and no one should really care. should be something people talk about and further ideas instead of debate about. like i could be a fracking Cylon for all i know
1. definition of god (must have one in order to prove/disprove it exists) all powerful all knowing all loving creator of the universe(this is typical definition)
2.the world is inherently full of suffering and pain (go to feels thread) yet god does not do anything why? he is powerful enough to stop it (all powerful) he knows how to stop it (all knowing) he loves us enough to stop it (all loving)
3. the fact that the world is still full of suffering proves he dose not exists cuz if he did exists he would be compelled (by his own definition) to stop the suffering
the only other way to get around this is to change this definition of god and very few are willing
>>578997635 because i dont join groups so i can identify with people. i dont believe there is a god but i also dont call myself and aheist. i dont about anyone on this planet or any planet. i dont care about any of it.
>>579007208 you still accomplish nothing by mentioning the big bang. it depends on interpretation of words which are just human filters to the correct translation of ideas(all we have not knocking them). if i take the word 'god' to mean the force that began space/time/matter etc. how can anyone fault that? this is all pointless shit anyway but dont criticize word use when its meaning is so undefined.
everyone with religious beleif, please take a minute to think about how you have been introduced to religion. then tell me that if you excluded that person of group of person of your life you would have/ COULD have came up with the exact same faith by urself.
>>578997635 I'm not a religious person, i'm a believer, a pantheist. Because Science say, if you are a believer, than you live longer, have a better health, be more satisfied with life, have better relationsships. We have areas in our brain, that work only when you have thoughts of believing. This area come with the evolution, it must have some benefit to believe in something.
>>578997635 we live in a secular nation, so there's no need to justify my belief or lack thereof.
I am an atheist because I don't believe in a diety. I know that I can't know whether or not there is a god, thus I stand by the idea that i won't believe in something that can't be proven and i won't believe something just because it can't be disproven.
Atheism isn't "I know that there is no god" Atheism is "I don't believe in a god"
I should also mention that everyone is atheist by default. None of you had personal contact with deities or some quantum consciousness. Someone convinced you to believe in something you feel never see or even worse such as tell yourself that you are agnostic and you can never known answers to simple questions.
So did Hitler, Staling, and me when I was forced to gang rape a Christian girl in Pakistan. None of that shit defines your character. You can be a Muslim, Christian, or a nigger and still be a bad person with even greater ideas. Even Einstein believed in God and that was his main reason for doubting the fundamentals of modern day quantum mechanics.
P.S. only cool physics nerds will get this joke. Why did Einstein fear quantum teleportation ? It was spooky. lol
If you make the assumption that god created everything, that still isn't something worth denying. Two reasons: -It's impossible to deny. (which is by all means no reason for it's truth) -The assumption is based on nothing.
>>579009519 disagreed. Atheism is just a lack of belief, not a belief that there is nothing to believe in. it's not the belief that there is no dieties, it's just lack of belief in dieties. there's a fine line to seperate those two.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.