How do you not believe in God? I can't not believe in God

>>1435885
legit really made me think, and cute image. bretty good post

Go to church, Andy

>>1435898
>legit really made me think
I legit think you might be retarded if "ever think about how the existence God is obvious cuz everything just can't exist by chance" seems in any way thought-provoking to you

>Post-modern society and semi-bogus theories that are treated as unquestionable facts
A postmodern society that holds unquestionable theories about the origins of the world? Wow, I take it back, that "really makes you think".

>>1435885
The design comes from life adapting to survive in the universe, not the universe being optimized for life. It's not an accident, it's the result of billions of years of struggle.

>>1435885
>admitted that there was intelligent design behind these laws
Um, he didn't. He said he believed in "Spinoza's god".

>>1435914
>>1435918
>There's nothing incorrect about the big bang theory and evolution

People actually believe this. Both of these are heavily lacking in evidence/proof, and filled to the brink with holes. So why isn't this brought up by more people in the scientific community? Because it's social suicide for them. They're going against a dogma.

400 million years ago horseshoe crabs looked practically the same, 400 million years ago humans were fish.

Lining up fossilized remains of an animal that lived in one time period, and comparing it to remains from a similar looking animal from a later time period, is not proof that one evolved into the other.

The idea of the fossil record as evidence for evolution is bogus, and even if it wasn't, it's incredibly incomplete, and will forever remain that way (as said by Darwin himself).

Why and how would a successfully asexually reproducing organism develop sexual reproduction, even though it's literally at least 50% less efficient, and it's not as if they knew of possible benefits from sexual reproduction, and just collectively decided to form sexual organs. This question is unanswered in modern science today.

You might see something minor from natural selection, like a species of animal with previously dark-fur that has become introduced to a snowy environment, and then becoming white furred, because all the dark-furred ones were more likely to die from predators, and increasingly less likely to breed, until they were bred out.

You can sit there for millions of years though and you'll never witness a fish turn into a bird, not unless God wills it, and if he does this through mutations in-vitro it would be short term major changes over few generations, such as all the fish immediately giving birth to only altered creatures that are significantly more like a bird, not a process over millions of years.

Initial development of eyes, ears, sexual organs could not happen through natural selection.

File: 1482562212279.png (38KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x250px

>>1435885
But I DO believe in Allah. It is infidels like yourself who don't and for that you must pay with your life.

>>1435930
talkorigins.org

>>1435885
Because if a god exists he would be nothing but a middle man. E.g. He is not fundamental. Perhaps our existence was created by a god, but that's not the end of the story. How can it be?

It makes no sense to have such a complex thing (a living being who is infinitely wise/benevolent and can literally do/create anything) be a fundamental building block of existence.
Thinking a god can be the ultimate answer to everything is like a world where you buy legos pre-built and follow the instructions to deconstruct them. God is incredibly more complex than anything and all life you see on this planet combined.

So it seems to me that one way or another, it must be possible for complex things/life to arize out of less complex things. Not the other way around.

>>1435930
The "theory of evolution" doesn't need to be THE RIGHT explanation for it to still be a correct theory. Even if no living things evolved on Earth and god just made us as we are one day, that STILL would not imply the "theory of evolution" is wrong.
It is an inescapable fact that evolution is possible. (Possible is the key word)
I'm willing to bet that you accept we have DNA right? and you accept that DNA occasionally undergoes copy errors? Then you have all the ingredients for evolution to take place, and it's only a question of whether or not that's how humans came to be. But that's a different story. The theory is sound.

>400 million years ago horseshoe crabs looked practically the same, 400 million years ago humans were fish.
Evolution doesn't actually have a goal. "De-evolution" is literally just evolution. Honestly you'd be better off thinking of evolution as just a sort of accidental thing that happens. It doesn't have to.

>Why and how would a successfully asexually reproducing organism develop sexual reproduction, even though it's literally at least 50% less efficient
It's not. When 2 living things are required to combine their DNA to produce offspring that GREATLY increases the diversity of the genetic pool. This is also why we literally have a death switch encoded in our DNA. If not for that we could all live to be 1000's of years old, but our DNA actually makes our bodies stop slowly die because getting rid of the younger generations to make way for newer combinations is beneficial to the adaptability of a species. Imagine if we still had Neanderthals alive today asexually giving birth to almost identical copies of themselves and competing with modern humans? The species as a whole wouldn't move forward.

>You can sit there for millions of years though and you'll never witness a fish turn into a bird
Right. But what's your point? Evolution doesn't operate on individuals in any way. It only manifests through the birth of younger generations.

>>1435954
>When 2 living things are required to combine their DNA to produce offspring that GREATLY increases the diversity of the genetic pool.

You're ignoring the rest of what I said.

These organisms did not collectively get together and say: "There is benefits to sexual reproduction by creating genetic diversity, let us now collectively form a sexual reproduction system".

How would the initial development of eyes, ears, or sexual organs happen through natural selection or accident? How would a species that doesn't have eyes collectively begin to form something as complex as eyes? It's not like animals changing fur color from natural selection.

Here's a quote from Darwin himself showing some humility, even though he played mental gymnastics to rationalize this afterwards.

>To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

File: 584px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png (154KB, 584x815px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 584x815px

>>1435967
>How would the initial development of eyes, ears, or sexual organs happen through natural selection or accident?

>>1435973
I know God is angry that a lie like this is being told by those in positions of authority. They tell the lie that eyes were created through accident, rather than design.

>>1435967
>These organisms did not collectively get together and say: "There is benefits to sexual reproduction by creating genetic diversity, let us now collectively form a sexual reproduction system"
Right. Nobody makes that decision. There is no "hand of evolution", and members of the species certainly don't decide.
That's why I said you'd be better off thinking of evolution as something that just accidentally happens. It doesn't have to.

But just for a moment, hypothetically, allow yourself to imagine that it did happen. That just through the unimaginable eons of time and random DNA mutations and chance, you ended up with a few organisms that produced sexually. Just consider it for a second.
They are now much much more adaptable as a species than their asexually reproducing counterparts.

Consider an iceage comes along. All the organisms that are suited to warm climats die off in both the asexual and sexual reproducing species.
But the sexually reproducing species retains the genetic codes of those who can survive in warm climates (in fact some offspring will still be born during the iceage who can only survive in warm climates and they'll contine to die off). But one day the ice age ends and the asexually reproducing species can only keep making nearly identical copies of themselves meaning all of their offspring won't survive in the warm period. They'll completely die off and cease to exist.

The sexually reproducing species will then give birth to a few offspring capable of surviving in warm periods just as they always have but now those offspring will live longer lives and the rest of those adapted to the cold will die off (and similarly during this warm period they'll continue to occasionally give birth to those capable of surviving in the cold but they'll just quickly die).

So hypothetically speaking, if such a reproductive system just formed somehow, it would no doubt easily out-compete an asexual reproductive species.

god is a monster, life is hell

Will continue.
>>1435885
>How do you not believe in God?
I wish to believe in God, and wish there was something more to life beyond this meaningless misery and suffering. But there isn't. We're born to feel suffer in misery, then we die in pain, like animals, and all of our desires, memories, ambitions, everything, is wiped out forever, and there is nobody that will carry it on. It's the sad nature of the Universe. There is nothing you can do about it. Even if there is a God, there is no reason to believe he still cares about humans, or he ever did, let alone a reason to assume that the Creator of the Universe, whatever or whoever it/he is, is a beardy guy whose son is someone called Jesus. The book of God, the Bible, starts off with a talking snake. Anyway. The most important factor is scientific reasoning. You can't just go around saying invisible unicorns exist and basing everything you do on that. If science was wrong, we would not have gotten here. We would still have ancient age technology if we were to believe the Earth was the center of the Universe and that man is made of some special aura. Time after time the religious elite was proved wrong. And they still are to this day. There is no God to save us. Individually speaking, we are alone. There is no meaning, purpose.
>Do you actually think this all developed by accident, without a designer?
Yes, it's something called Quantum Mechanics. Everything is random. Things become predictable on a larger scale, because they cancel each other out like with fractions, but fundamentally, the Universe is pure randomness.

>Forever man has been aware of God through what has been made, they experienced the world, and it was obvious that it was designed.
No. Obvious how? When you look at the world and you see everything wrong with it. Wars, rape, murder, theft, homelessness, poverty, selfishness, lust, vice. When you look at nature and see its cruelty, when you look at the human body and see its countless imperfections, such as literally having to shit and piss, not only that, pissing and having sex from the same hole, which in turn is next to the shitting hole, being so primitive in its experience of the world and so on. Things turned out this way because of a process known as evolution.
>Post-modern society and semi-bogus theories that are treated as unquestionable facts created a world where people no longer see what is obvious.
You say it is obvious because you can't think another way. You cannot prove the existence of this God you talk about. But you could prove the fundamental building blocks of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity with neon lights, a source of heat, a piece of paper, and a source of electricity.
>Albert Einstein, someone who heavily studied the laws of physics designed by God, admitted that there was intelligent design behind these laws. He was not Atheist.
This is untrue. Albert Einstein said he was an atheist many times. The only mention of God in any of Einstein's work was he was once debating with I think it was Schrodinger, and Schrodinger was basically saying some random things on the subatomic level happens, and Einstein replied, God does not play dice. That's all ever happened.

Will continue.

The conclusion is your entire post is shit and I am disappointed, not at you, but at myself for taking the time to reply to it. There is nothing to life. As I said in the star, our lives are meaningless pieces of trash. We are supposed to feel nothing but suffering. There's not one good side to it. You must be one of the 1% happiest people on Earth for being so blissfully unaware of the evil nature of this Universe that you think anything good could actually exist. God simply does not exist. Even if He does, He must be laughing his ass out of this civilization. Humans are pathetic. If anything we were created for his pure amusement. Like how children like to inflict pain on animals. I hope you can enjoy your life full of blessings and full of divinity while you can, because for most of mankind, this planet is Hell.

>>1436001
>>1436003
>>1436005
Uh just because God doesn't love you it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
God doesn't care about losers who want everything in a silver spoon.
You have to work hard to earn God's love, you won't get it just from complaining about your shit life.

>>1435973
>>1435981
I know you're shitposting but there are actually extant animals that exhibit each stage in that diagram.

File: 1458261503356.png (382KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 512x512px

>>1436209
how do you know?

'murrican fundies are absolutely hilarious

>>1435912
thread should have ended hee

>>1436267
catholic church accepts the theory of evolution

File: hmm.png (654KB, 628x645px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 628x645px

I dont believe because i dont have any reason to.
Especially when any other explanation is more logical to me.

>>1435885
I've never believed in it, always seemed stupid to me.

>world created in 6 days
>man made out of ribs
>talking snakes
>guy walks on water
>heaven and hell
Only Americans still believe this shit.

I think it's a dumb discussion, nothing can possibly come from it. It's like trying to define art. Completely pointless.