Jump to content

The Religion/Spirituality Thread


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Dazey said:

It's almost as if they were making it up as they went along. 

Or.......

Humans are naturally clutch and it was supposed to be a punishment?

3 minutes ago, action said:

I was always the biggest sceptic in these things. I found it all so utterly stupid. priests and ceremonies and sitting still in church, all that drivel. I hated religion with a passion at school. And to a certain extent, I still do. The church, the teachings, the ceremonies... it all means nothing to me. For one exception: the church, as a building, I find a great place to ponder about these things. When I step into a church, I feel the history and the connection with above. I can feel it at home too, in prayer, but going to church is like going to a rock concerts, when it comes to religion (without the ceremony, that is).

Whenever I pass a church, I'm going inside to light a candle for my loved ones. I find it relaxing, comforting, and just a nice habit of mine. I don't harm anyone.

People like you, who ignorantly mock all and everything that relates to church, I find quite a nuisance. You argue things nicely, as we speak, but all too often you're making a freak show out of it. you have no respect, whatsoever. but I won't go as far as certain other people on here, to leave this place just because of that. If I did that, there wouldn't be many places left I'd want to be.

Correct

Religion is whatever you want it to be.

It can divide but it can also bring people together.

 

Atheism is a religion. It's the religion saying that there is no god and everyone else is stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, action said:

star wars is a religion too, but it is accepted and not ridiculed

I'll never understand what's so ridiculous about the belief that a creator created the universe and all life in it. 

People who say its ridiculous are just covering up shit they don't know. Hell there is shit Science cant explain. If it says that the universe started at a singular point and expand th then who or what created that singular point.

 

Nobody knows it's up to interpretation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bible, from what I read, is more about how you should treat other people, and less about giving explanations for god and creation.

yes, god is a protagonist in the bible, but the bulk of the message is how you should stand in life, and treat other people.

if you're going to read the bible expecting explanations, you're going to be disapointed. Barely one paragraph is dedicated to the creation, and even that is worded in riddles. 

the gospels are my favorite part. they offer great guidance on how to stand in life. some stuff in it makes you wonder and think. I'm actually glad I have it. No other book comes close to giving this level of guidance. the books whisdom, again, great stuff in there. you can not read this and not walk away a better person, or at least  makes you evaluate your behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, action said:

I'll never understand what's so ridiculous about the belief that a creator created the universe and all life in it. 

I dunno about ridiculous but difficult to swallow, the lack of evidence and logical interpretation?  I understand that you believe there is and I don't mean to insult you by calling it illogical but, look at it this way, it takes a leap of faith right?  Well the fact that that leap is required is evidence in itself that it's not the easiest pill to swallow.  There is a lot to it, as stated in this thread by believers and defenders for want of a better term, that requires interpretation, artistic techniques, literary devices applied, like personification etc etc.  This is clear evidence that its not simple, its not elementary, its not straight forward, its not cold facts and not a 1 + 1 = 2 type thing.  I mean the books of these religions, The Qu'ran, The Bible etc have been studied and re-studied and interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries, people have taken from them a million different interpretations, good and bad and middling.  

Perhaps there's something wrong with me but I could NEVER believe...and believe me when I tell you I was raised ultra religious.  But I just couldn't, I don't know why, it just never settled into me.  To this day I am often surrounded by religious people, people of fervent belief, I've even been in other countries where you are surrounded by it completely and compelled to respect certain occasions.  The human propensity to conform to environment is stronger than you think, its one of those things you perhaps have to be subject to to truly understand...but I could never swallow it because it just doesn't make sense.  And its not because I'm some dyed in the wool pragmatist like Soulie appears to be (I say appears to be, I don't know the man so perhaps I shouldn't judge), I often entertain umpteen wish washy, far fetched, abstract, artsy fartsy interpretations of any number of things.  There was a point in my youth where I had damn near a physical aversion to it but you grow out of these things (one would hope!) and with age develop a more sober view of the world around you that is less centred around personal experience and more receptive to the realities of the world...but surely you can see how its like...not the easiest thing to accept.  

Have you ever questioned your faith?  Had a crisis of faith perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I dunno about ridiculous but difficult to swallow, the lack of evidence and logical interpretation?  I understand that you believe there is and I don't mean to insult you by calling it illogical but, look at it this way, it takes a leap of faith right?  Well the fact that that leap is required is evidence in itself that it's not the easiest pill to swallow.  There is a lot to it, as stated in this thread by believers and defenders for want of a better term, that requires interpretation, artistic techniques, literary devices applied, like personification etc etc.  This is clear evidence that its not simple, its not elementary, its not straight forward, its not cold facts and not a 1 + 1 = 2 type thing.  I mean the books of these religions, The Qu'ran, The Bible etc have been studied and re-studied and interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries, people have taken from them a million different interpretations, good and bad and middling.  

Perhaps there's something wrong with me but I could NEVER believe...and believe me when I tell you I was raised ultra religious.  But I just couldn't, I don't know why, it just never settled into me.  To this day I am often surrounded by religious people, people of fervent belief, I've even been in other countries where you are surrounded by it completely and compelled to respect certain occasions.  The human propensity to conform to environment is stronger than you think, its one of those things you perhaps have to be subject to to truly understand...but I could never swallow it because it just doesn't make sense.  And its not because I'm some dyed in the wool pragmatist like Soulie appears to be (I say appears to be, I don't know the man so perhaps I shouldn't judge), I often entertain umpteen wish washy, far fetched, abstract, artsy fartsy interpretations of any number of things.  There was a point in my youth where I had damn near a physical aversion to it but you grow out of these things (one would hope!) and with age develop a more sober view of the world around you that is less centred around personal experience and more receptive to the realities of the world...but surely you can see how its like...not the easiest thing to accept.  

Have you ever questioned your faith?  Had a crisis of faith perhaps?

my belief is utterly natural. I just can not fathom how the universe could exist, without a creator. no matter how hard I try, I can not comprehend how that could be possible.

It's like, tomorrow you wake up and red dead redemption 3 lays on your table. "Poof", it just popped up out of nothing.

And this is just a video game I'm talking about. crazy, huh?

well, how about the sex pistols, chuck berry, mozart, Queen, guns n roses.... all of that, ultimately comes forth of "nothing", if you are atheist.

that's quite something, this "nothing" that we're talking about. it could create all of that, and more.

getting rich while sitting on your ass isn't half such an achievement as that.

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, action said:

my belief is utterly natural. I just can not fathom how the universe could exist, without a creator. no matter how hard I try, I can not comprehend how that could be possible.

It's like, tomorrow you wake up and red dead redemption 3 lays on your table. "Poof", it just popped up out of nothing.

And this is just a video game I'm talking about. crazy, huh?

well, how about the sex pistols, chuck berry, mozart, Queen, guns n roses.... all of that, ultimately comes forth of "nothing", if you are atheist.

that's quite something, this "nothing" that we're talking about. it could create all of that, and more.

getting rich while sitting on your ass isn't half such an achievement as that.

Science is a work in progress isn't it?  The never ending attempt to explain the universe, it knows as much as it knows this minute for this minute and the more and more that gets figured out the more and more it explains, it doesn't claim to be an authority, its invites challenge, it invites a reasoned attack of it even because if you prove it wrong in something then you are ultimately aiding its understanding, thats an incredibly humble place to be coming from.  Science doesn't know where we came from, science is the perpetual search to find out, aided by whatever evidence we can piece together.  Perhaps it will explain everything in one million and two years from now, perhaps it will never explain everything and the world will swallow itself well before we're a billion miles from ever figuring it out, the point is not the figuring out of things so much as its integrity of approach because it is precisely that integrity that its value lies in, to me anyway.  Science doesn't really want shit from you, it doesn't require submission or supplication, it doesn't even ask that you believe it, it doesn't even really believe itself insofar as any of its suppositions about origin being definitive because they are not definitive by virtue of the fact that its an on-going process.  Science doesn't claim to be all encompassing, Science doesn't claim to be an authority over the spiritual if such a thing exists, it isn't concerned with disproving religion, the two things can happily exist without killing each other, its busy working out its own conclusion and presenting evidence.  

My point is you can't really compare it with religion because religion, or at least Judeo-Christian religion, in terms of doctrine etc, is kinda set in stone. Even when Jesus returns he isn't bringing another revelation with him, at least not that I've read, same with The Qu'ran etc, the doctrine has long been laid out, all the explanations are right there in the book.  Science doesn't claim or even aim for such definitiveness.  It hasn't even set its sights that high yet, if you think about it.  Religious scripture has an answer for what was going on since time immemorial, science is more saying like 'OK, this is what we've got so far regarding 'x' amount' but disprove me anytime you're ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Science doesn't know where we came from, science is the perpetual search to find out,

Thats basically religon 

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Science doesn't claim to be all encompassing, Science doesn't claim to be an authority over the spiritual if such a thing exists

Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkin beg/begged to differ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Thats basically religon 

Right, there's just a difference in approach.  That glaring similarity exists though, absolutely.  One is evidence based and one is faith or belief based and I'm certainly not the man to be standing in the way of anyones faith or belief or right to believe.  But I choose evidence myself, or if you like the on-going search for and piecing together of evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Most of the bible is people questioning faith and shiot.

Jesus and the agony in the garden.

Moses

Noah's arch

Abrham and Issac

The Garden of Eden and the devil tempting Adam.

Thats the point I was trying to make, it takes a leap or there is a process involved even for prophets so it shouldn't be hard to understand how a regular joe might have trouble with the idea of a creator or the taking of the leap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Right, there's just a difference in approach.  That glaring similarity exists though, absolutely.  One is evidence based and one is faith or belief based and I'm certainly not the man to be standing in the way of anyones faith or belief or right to believe.  But I choose evidence myself, or if you like the on-going search for and piecing together of evidence.

Agreed. My family is religious but they are not like Christian fundamentalists. It;s basically a belief that makes you a better person.

From research I used to do I came to the conclusion that Science and Religion are supposed to go hand in hand. Science is supposed to prove what religion can not and Religion is supposed to bne the stuff that science can not explain a delicate balance. 

 

I grew up religious and I still am I am more of a secular religion person but I still follow the christian aspect. Like I believe that all the religions that have ever existed  in the history of time are all the same story with different ways of telling you and that all the gods or god is just a personification of the creator. 

 

Other shit is stuff we can never explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Agreed. My family is religious but they are not like Christian fundamentalists. It;s basically a belief that makes you a better person.

From research I used to do I came to the conclusion that Science and Religion are supposed to go hand in hand. Science is supposed to prove what religion can not and Religion is supposed to bne the stuff that science can not explain a delicate balance. 

 

I grew up religious and I still am I am more of a secular religion person but I still follow the christian aspect. Like I believe that all the religions that have ever existed  in the history of time are all the same story with different ways of telling you and that all the gods or god is just a personification of the creator. 

 

Other shit is stuff we can never explain.

I can respect that.  I don't think I'm quite brave enough or educated enough to reach the sort of conclusions you have about the co-dependent balance between science and religion but I get what you're saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

I meant in the sense that science readily admits that there are umpteen things that it can't explain therefore it is not all-encompassing.

Ok I think I misunderstood. 

For me personally I believe  in a creator. Like I don't think everything that has ever happened has happened by chance.  It is undisputed that evolution and the big bang  came  from a singular point  in time in the very early part of the universe.

The earth and life didn't come to be just because the Earth is a proper distance from the Sun and has liquid water because it got lucky. Something had to start and guide the early events Weather god or a Giant mystical creature something had to get the ball rolling  to get this started. The fact that there have been planets  discovered that are like earth but we don't know if there is life is enough for me.

I could be wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I can respect that.  I don't think I'm quite brave enough or educated enough to reach the sort of conclusions you have about the co-dependent balance between science and religion but I get what you're saying.  

If you look at a lot  of scientists from the early 17th century to the mid 18th century many  were religious

Galleo 

Darwin was raised religious but believe that religion is interpretation and believed in a creator. 

Ensitne was a pantheist but did not think an afterlife exists. 

It's naive to say that Science disproves God its much more diverse and complicated issue that will never be solved till we die

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Ok I think I misunderstood. 

For me personally I believe  in a creator. Like I don't think everything that has ever happened has happened by chance.  It is undisputed that evolution and the big bang  came  from a singular point  in time in the very early part of the universe.

The earth and life didn't come to be just because the Earth is a proper distance from the Sun and has liquid water because it got lucky. Something had to start and guide the early events Weather god or a Giant mystical creature something had to get the ball rolling  to get this started. The fact that there have been planets  discovered that are like earth but we don't know if there is life is enough for me.

I could be wrong

For me there's a massive disconnect there that I can't put together.  I mean in the sense of like, OK, we're taking for granted the big bang and evolution here, I'm presented with the proposition of a creator being the guiding force there.  So here I am, entertaining the notion or rather conclusion.  Why?  Why that answer, why a creator, how can I possibly settle on that without...something, anything, some kind of something.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not shitting on your belief here, just explaining another view, my view.  Maybe you're right but when I'm presented with something like that and I look at it in terms of 'is that right, is that what I should believe?' I want to see the connection.  And all I get is 'well how else could it be possible?', the answer to which is I don't know how else, if I knew how else there wouldn't be a discussion taking place here but I can't (and I get that you're not asking me to, just a turn of phrase) settle on a conclusion with no evidence just cuz I can't come up with any other options.  I'm not dismissing the possibility, however remote, in its entirety, I just need reason and reasoning and evidence, which perhaps is a limitation of mine or of my imagination.  

I can't believe in anything without constantly questioning it and if those questions are not answered I find myself unable, no matter how attractive the notion or proposition might be, to swallow it.  I can't quiet that chattering in my head with a leap of faith, even though it would probably be massively comforting if I could.  And you may very well be right, since there are no definitive explanations available.  But I can't roll the dice on a might, I'm just not built that way.  I don't mean to be disrespectful to faith by comparing it to a philosophical roll of the dice, thats just how it feels to me when I consider the notion for myself.  I believe.  What does that mean exactly?  I ask myself this and I can't quite get my head around it as an explanation.  I guess it's not supposed to be an explanation.  Just doesn't seem airtight to me.  A creator, a being, a spiritual being perhaps, a being beyond our perception or comprehension, see to me you get into dangerous ground there, principles like that are very open to abuse and that makes me wary, I'm cynical enough as it is, when the answer to 'why?' is that a thing is beyond my comprehension then I find it very difficult to commit, impossible even.  

 

1 minute ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

If you look at a lot  of scientists from the early 17th century to the mid 18th century many  were religious

Galleo 

Darwin was raised religious but believe that religion is interpretation and believed in a creator. 

Ensitne was a pantheist but did not think an afterlife exists. 

It's naive to say that Science disproves God its much more diverse and complicated issue that will never be solved till we die

What I meant more than it 'disproves God' is that I'm not sure about the relationship between the two, about its dynamic and how they sit in relation to each other.  Its perhaps an evolving thing?  I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Len Cnut said:

For me there's a massive disconnect there that I can't put together.  I mean in the sense of like, OK, we're taking for granted the big bang and evolution here, I'm presented with the proposition of a creator being the guiding force there.  So here I am, entertaining the notion or rather conclusion.  Why?  Why that answer, why a creator, how can I possibly settle on that without...something, anything, some kind of something.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not shitting on your belief here, just explaining another view, my view.  Maybe you're right but when I'm presented with something like that and I look at it in terms of 'is that right, is that what I should believe?' I want to see the connection.  And all I get is 'well how else could it be possible?', the answer to which is I don't know how else, if I knew how else there wouldn't be a discussion taking place here but I can't (and I get that you're not asking me to, just a turn of phrase) settle on a conclusion with no evidence just cuz I can't come up with any other options.  I'm not dismissing the possibility, however remote, in its entirety, I just need reason and reasoning and evidence, which perhaps is a limitation of mine or of my imagination.  

I can't believe in anything without constantly questioning it and if those questions are not answered I find myself unable, no matter how attractive the notion or proposition might be, to swallow it.  I can't quiet that chattering in my head with a leap of faith, even though it would probably be massively comforting if I could.  And you may very well be right, since there are no definitive explanations available.  But I can't roll the dice on a might, I'm just not built that way.  I don't mean to be disrespectful to faith by comparing it to a philosophical roll of the dice, thats just how it feels to me when I consider the notion for myself.  I believe.  What does that mean exactly?  I ask myself this and I can't quite get my head around it as an explanation.  I guess it's not supposed to be an explanation.  Just doesn't seem airtight to me.  A creator, a being, a spiritual being perhaps, a being beyond our perception or comprehension, see to me you get into dangerous ground there, principles like that are very open to abuse and that makes me wary, I'm cynical enough as it is, when the answer to 'why?' is that a thing is beyond my comprehension then I find it very difficult to commit, impossible even.  

 

I understand what you're saying and its a confusing topi

c.  Its something one must figure out for themselves. 

 

Like  for example the notion of a Advanced Alien Civilization.  Are Humans the only intelligent lifeforms amongst billions of galaxies? Maybe  and maybe not but it's that notion alone that makes think there is something out there and trying to contact us. 

Something with god. It's  impossible to disprove or prove(agnostic)  its just what you chose. If you chose that there is no god, your view your choice, you chose to believe in a creator, again that is your right

We can debate but its no ones place to say you are wrong or I am right. We don't know and wont know till we die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Science is a work in progress isn't it?  The never ending attempt to explain the universe, it knows as much as it knows this minute for this minute and the more and more that gets figured out the more and more it explains, it doesn't claim to be an authority, its invites challenge, it invites a reasoned attack of it even because if you prove it wrong in something then you are ultimately aiding its understanding, thats an incredibly humble place to be coming from.  Science doesn't know where we came from, science is the perpetual search to find out, aided by whatever evidence we can piece together.  Perhaps it will explain everything in one million and two years from now, perhaps it will never explain everything and the world will swallow itself well before we're a billion miles from ever figuring it out, the point is not the figuring out of things so much as its integrity of approach because it is precisely that integrity that its value lies in, to me anyway.  Science doesn't really want shit from you, it doesn't require submission or supplication, it doesn't even ask that you believe it, it doesn't even really believe itself insofar as any of its suppositions about origin being definitive because they are not definitive by virtue of the fact that its an on-going process.  Science doesn't claim to be all encompassing, Science doesn't claim to be an authority over the spiritual if such a thing exists, it isn't concerned with disproving religion, the two things can happily exist without killing each other, its busy working out its own conclusion and presenting evidence.  

My point is you can't really compare it with religion because religion, or at least Judeo-Christian religion, in terms of doctrine etc, is kinda set in stone. Even when Jesus returns he isn't bringing another revelation with him, at least not that I've read, same with The Qu'ran etc, the doctrine has long been laid out, all the explanations are right there in the book.  Science doesn't claim or even aim for such definitiveness.  It hasn't even set its sights that high yet, if you think about it.  Religious scripture has an answer for what was going on since time immemorial, science is more saying like 'OK, this is what we've got so far regarding 'x' amount' but disprove me anytime you're ready.

I love science. I used to devour science books on the universe and watch programs on national geographics and youtube.

I'm by no means a scientist, but I have a big interest in it.

I don't have a big interest in religion though, as in a predetermined interpretation of certain old books. With this kind of stuff, I prefer to use my own interpretation and belief. Because ultimately, the biggest difference with religion and science is that with the former, everyone can make up their own mind, while in the latter, knowledge isn't really up for debate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

I understand what you're saying and its a confusing topi

c.  Its something one must figure out for themselves. 

 

Like  for example the notion of a Advanced Alien Civilization.  Are Humans the only intelligent lifeforms amongst billions of galaxies? Maybe  and maybe not but it's that notion alone that makes think there is something out there and trying to contact us. 

Something with god. It's  impossible to disprove or prove(agnostic)  its just what you chose. If you chose that there is no god, your view your choice, you chose to believe in a creator, again that is your right

We can debate but its no ones place to say you are wrong or I am right. We don't know and wont know till we die.

Perhaps its just the difference between cynicism and idealism, why and why not, each with their own inherent value and pitfalls.  See cuz I take the idea of aliens and say 'OK, why not?'...but then I need proof.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, action said:

I love science. I used to devour science books on the universe and watch programs on national geographics and youtube.

I'm by no means a scientist, but I have a big interest in it.

I don't have a big interest in religion though, as in a predetermined interpretation of certain old books. With this kind of stuff, I prefer to use my own interpretation and belief. Because ultimately, the biggest difference with religion and science is that with the former, everyone can make up their own mind, while in the latter, knowledge isn't really up for debate 

It's surely up for debate...but it's up for debate with reasoning, evidence etc.  Religion, in the formal sense with the scripture etc is a lot more set in stone as far as I can see.  I do find the interpretive aspect of religion to be fascinating though, if only because it feeds very much into my interest in art and literature and such.  Science, much like religion, requires commitment.  If I'm gonna stand up and challenge science on something it requires the commitment of first a sound knowledge of it and sound evidence, there's a lot of work there and it might not be personally comforting in the end.  Religion requires another kind of commitment and it has a lot more potential for personal comfort I think, which says a lot for its popularity.  I guess there's a certain comfort in science too, in the gradual discovery of more and more of the building blocks of our universe.  Its just a serious of drips as opposed to a kind of huge epiphany or revelatory thing that suddenly makes everything slot into place for you.

The thing I like about science though, very much like, is its lack of sentimentalism.  There's a courage to it, in accepting and embracing the notion of us as finite being thats will eventually shut off.  Not that I have anything against sentimentalism, it just appears to me to be very brave cuz thats not an easy pill to swallow either, that when we're dead we're just gone and thats it, worm food or ash or whatever.  It always seemed to me that religion was an answer to the human conditions basic irrational fear of death and the essential pointlessness of life and eternal life ever-lasting was created, in part, as an antedote to that fear.  Because how many people would remain sane d'ya think if they had to come to terms with the notion that life is completely pointless.  I mean pointless in the sense that its not leading somewhere, it eventually comes to a dead stop.  If life has taught me anything thus far its that the hard answers are usually the truest and science or atheism or whatever provides the hardest answer.  Religions is a salve in comparison, it that takes all that away, even if one of the possible destinations is hell, better pain than nothing at all, better the possibility of redemption from hell by a benevolent God rather than 70 or so, if you're lucky, years on earth before dying that eventually, in a few centuries, being completely forgotten, relevant only to a small amount of people for a relatively small amount of time.  I mean how many John Smiths and Jane Doe's lay in forgotten graves around the world, thats a hard fuckin' lick for a lot of people.  To be a part of this thing, this world, something so huge and so wonderous...and to be so conscious of it, the most concious of any being as far as we're aware...and then for it to ultimately mean nothing except what you make it mean to yourself and those few that surround you for the short period you're here.  Its enough for some but, I wager, not nearly enough for most, not if they really thought about it.  

And in that sense I guess religion is incredibly valuable.  Cuz everybody has something, something that holds them together, something that they lean on.  Every man can be broken, no matter how strong and if religion is the thing that keeps so many from breaking then it almost doesn't matter if its real for me, as long as its real for them.  That has the potential to sound awfully patronising but thats not how I meant it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, action said:

I'll never understand what's so ridiculous about the belief that a creator created the universe and all life in it. 

I wouldn't say it is ridiculous. It is just without any evidence. So it is irrational. It is like believing in anything else for which no supporting evidence is available. Like believing that tea cups are circling alpha centauri. It is a lapse of reason among otherwise usually reasonable people.

11 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

People who say its ridiculous are just covering up shit they don't know. Hell there is shit Science cant explain. If it says that the universe started at a singular point and expand th then who or what created that singular point.

Nobody knows it's up to interpretation. 

Nobody knows. And then comes the difference between a rational approach to the unknown and an irrational approach: To accept that we don't know and leave it at that, or to fill that gap in our knowledge with a supernatural explanation. The former makes sense, the latter doesn't.

Edited by SoulMonster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, action said:

my belief is utterly natural. I just can not fathom how the universe could exist, without a creator. no matter how hard I try, I can not comprehend how that could be possible.

It's like, tomorrow you wake up and red dead redemption 3 lays on your table. "Poof", it just popped up out of nothing.

But this is a strawman because no one is saying that anything popped out of nothing.

As for your point that you simply aren't able to comprehend that the universe could exist without there being a creator. Okay. Personally I have no problems accepting that matter/energy has always existed without there being a beginning or a creator. And then, though entirely natural processes, I know how complex systems can be formed from non-complex starting points (evolution of biological species being a case in point; another could be the formation of inorganic salt crystals). And what you are doing by introducing a creator doesn't actually solve the problem, because now you have to explain the origin of the creator. So you are taking a difficult problem and adding a supernatural entity without actually solving anything. You make the problem even more complex by adding supernatural agents into it. It doesn't make sense.

11 hours ago, action said:

well, how about the sex pistols, chuck berry, mozart, Queen, guns n roses.... all of that, ultimately comes forth of "nothing", if you are atheist.

No. You seem to have misunderstood something fundamentally about evolution, or cosmology or how music is created, or maybe all of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...