not at all
this boring life is all we got
No one knows shit until you kick the bucket.and yet so many did and no one returned/made a sign to tell about it
No one knows shit until you kick the bucket.
No one knows shit until you kick the bucket.
You know nothing when you kick the bucket, because your brain stops working.
People give me shit for being agnostic but it seems the most rational place to me. Same thing with aliens. If you shove incontrovertible proof of higher powers or cryptids or something in front of me I'll start believing in them, till then I don't care either way & it's mostly just about the cool lore we've created about such conceptsliterally me. i love folklore. i don't really believe any of it if i'm honest with myself though.
This is such a silly rationalization. Nobody knows what will happen if you plucked every individual hair out of your head, wove it into a blanket, and used it to swaddle a newborn aardvark under a full moon in July standing in the center of a circle of 1983 Ford F150s either. But it's almost certainly nothing, and believing it is or could something just because you can't *prove* it's nothing, is silliness.you cant prove its nothing, and no one can prove theres something using the scientific method. But just because you cant prove or disprove something using our limited scientific method, doesnt make it any less true/false. Youre the silly goose.
You literally stop existing completely, because we are just electrical impulses firing in sequence.no acknowledgement for the possibility of a spiritual realm whatsoever? Just because the body stops existing in the manner which we know, it doesnt mean that there isnt a spiritual plane of existence.
no acknowledgement for the possibility of a spiritual realm whatsoever? Just because the body stops existing in the manner which we know, it doesnt mean that there isnt a spiritual plane of existence.
I mean, sure, if you're okay with believing in something that has never seen any credible proof or evidence, but a lot of disproven claims.Disproven where ? First Im hearing about someone disproving the existence of God. Whats the legitimacy of these so called claims?
you cant prove its nothing, and no one can prove theres something using the scientific method. But just because you cant prove or disprove something using our limited scientific method, doesnt make it any less true/false. Youre the silly goose.Except you could totally test that using the scientific method. No one bothers testing such a hypothesis because there's literally nothing to suggest that there would be any result other than nothing.
Disproven where ? First Im hearing about someone disproving the existence of God. Whats the legitimacy of these so called claims?
Except you could totally test that using the scientific method. No one bothers testing such a hypothesis because there's literally nothing to suggest that there would be any result other than nothing.This is complete nonsense.
you cant prove its nothing, and no one can prove theres something using the scientific method. But just because you cant prove or disprove something using our limited scientific method, doesnt make it any less true/false. Youre the silly goose.So what you're saying is the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equal to God? We can't prove anything doesn't exist, so therefore everything unproven must be treated as equally true.
There are online workshops for reading comprehension. What did I say was disproven: Claims, or the existence of God?Fair enough. lots of disproven claims still doesnt equate to God not existing though.
Disproven where ? First Im hearing about someone disproving the existence of God. Whats the legitimacy of these so called claims?The poster never said anything about gods, you only mentioned some spiritual realm. That simply has no evidence supporting it.
The poster never said anything about gods, you only mentioned some spiritual realm. That simply has no evidence supporting it.Who said anything about the Bible?
The concept of a supernatural being is unfalsifiable, but a lot of claims about specific gods have indeed been disproven. For example, the god of the Bible cannot exist as depicted in the bible, there are too many inconsistencies within the book itself and tons of specific claims have been disproven.
This is complete nonsense.How is it nonsense? What is stopping you from plucking every individual hair out of your head, weaving it into a blanket, and using it to swaddle a newborn aardvark under a full moon in July standing in the center of a circle of 1983 Ford F150s? Those are all things that a human can do.
Who said anything about the Bible?...I did? I was using it as an example of spiritual claims that have been disproven.
So what you're saying is the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equal to God? We can't prove anything doesn't exist, so therefore everything unproven must be treated as equally true.Did humans come from nothing? Or did we create ourselves? Theres no other answer other than we were created by an entity thats beyond our comprehension.
Did humans come from nothing? Or did we create ourselves? Theres no other answer other than we were created by an entity thats beyond our comprehension.We have observed organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds in conditions similar to those that would have been present during the early years of the Earth. It certainly seems possible that life did arise from unlife, although Abiogenesis is certainly still a hypothesis at this point.
We have observed organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds in conditions similar to those that would have been present during the early years of the Earth. It certainly seems possible that life did arise from unlife, although Abiogenesis is certainly still a hypothesis at this point.no one has replicated those conditions in a lab. Renowned scientists are afraid to speak out against the primordial soup argument because of pressure from within to conform and group think from within the scientific community. And it seems possible isnt a strong enough stance. What do you personally think is more likely, life arising from unlife, or life being brought into existence by an entity beyond human comprehension?
no one has replicated those conditions in a lab. Renowned scientists are afraid to speak out against the primordial soup argument because of pressure from within to conform and group think from within the scientific community. And it seems possible isnt a strong enough stance. What do you personally think is more likely, life arising from unlife, or life being brought into existence by an entity beyond human comprehension?if we can't come from nothing then what makes god a super special exception? also saying atheists think we come from nothing is a strawman.
if we can't come from nothing then what makes god a super special exception? also saying atheists think we come from nothing is a strawman.can you have an infinite chain of dependent entities or events? God is the independent entity which has dominion over all dependent entities including the universe and everything within it.
People give me shit for being agnostic but it seems the most rational place to me. Same thing with aliens. If you shove incontrovertible proof of higher powers or cryptids or something in front of me I'll start believing in them, till then I don't care either way & it's mostly just about the cool lore we've created about such concepts
This. Until I know something is going to impact me, it's not worth worrying about.Death will impact us all.
Did humans come from nothing? Or did we create ourselves? Theres no other answer other than we were created by an entity thats beyond our comprehension.So then all of them must equally be a valid answer since we can't prove that anything unobserved doesn't actually not exist.
So then all of them must equally be a valid answer since we can't prove that anything unobserved doesn't actually not exist.yes - but if you had to stake your life on it and it was a multiple choice question which one would you choose?
no one has replicated those conditions in a lab. Renowned scientists are afraid to speak out against the primordial soup argument because of pressure from within to conform and group think from within the scientific community.That's... not how science works. At all. Even then, that sounds like a ticket to fame. Go to a lab, recreate the experiment (which many people have done, actually) and prove it wrong. What's stopping you? What's stopping religious scientists from disproving this? The whole point is to be able to reproduce results.
And it seems possible isnt a strong enough stance. What do you personally think is more likely, life arising from unlife, or life being brought into existence by an entity beyond human comprehension?Honestly? The former. For life to be brought into existence by a supernatural entity, you require a supernatural entity. I am not convinced of this, there is no evidence for this. In contrast, for life to arise from unlife, you need... well for living things to be able to come from unliving things.
can you have an infinite chain of dependent entities or events? God is the independent entity which has dominion over all dependent entities including the universe and everything within it.and what is your proof that god exists and is necessarily this first cause? i don't see why something couldn't have always existed without a god. again, what makes your god some special exception to the rule you made up?
Yes, God.
The Judeo-Christian God.
If youre asking that question with an attitude of skepticism only seeking to confirm that which you think to be true, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise. On the other hand if you seek knowledge I can provide you with book recommendations. On your second point, can dependent things exist without a creator?you just arbitrarily defined everything except god as "dependent things." that's very convenient. i'm not interested in reading apologetics.
Death will impact us all.
No doubt. But I'm not going to have the way I live my life dictated to me on the basis of zero evidence.Its convenient to live this way, without a sense of accountability for ones actions, but is nihilism really the answer?
you just arbitrarily defined everything except god as "dependent things." that's very convenient. i'm not interested in reading apologetics.Arent they though?
Its convenient to live this way, without a sense of accountability for ones actions, but is nihilism really the answer?
yes - but if you had to stake your life on it and it was a multiple choice question which one would you choose?Well infinite things that have never been observed and cannot be disproved would be my choices, so I'd randomly pick one and then be mad that I was forced into certain death by a ridiculous question.