₦airaland Forum

undercat:
Naa. Your religion has more of a deist/pantheist flavour.

undercat:
You worship, revere, exalt, idolize and defer to reason.

undercat:
Atheism is already their religion.

basisop:
What controlled the bird's stimuli?

jayriginal:
Last night, I was having drinks with a friend who happens to be a medical doctor.

Before he arrived on the scene and joined us, I stated that if only Pastors had some basic knowledge of science, perhaps some damage could be averted. Well my friend comes and somehow revives the conversation and states that evolution is false. He asks how come there are still monkeys if evolution is true.

My right eye still hurts from the facepalm.

davidylan:
1. well you dont know that the earth does not expand to infinity now do you?

2. While any gas can cause rustling, i can bet there will be some dogmatic folks (like you) who would absolutely insist that in the absence of an obvious/visible external force, a rustling grass can only be due to a gas that contains oxygen.

davidylan:
that's overly simplistic as to be downright laughable. Anything that gets bigger started from a point... ergo the BB is true?
I might as well also tell you that anything that rustles grass contains oxygen right?

plaetton:
Like I said before, this new idea does not deny that the big occurred. No.
This idea speculates on pre-bigbang scenario.

davidylan:
That's the very definition of blind faith. Its just unfortunate that you cant see beyond your own nose. Its like saying rustling grass is evidence that oxygen exists.

davidylan:
I agree... which is why you may understand my strong opposition to the BB. There is no observational evidence outside of desperate projections to support it. As i said earlier, if there was strong evidence for it, why would people be looking for alternatives?

lol the pope endorses the BB and that makes it right? The pope also endorses the idea of heaven, you also believe that too?

davidylan:
you've unwittingly exposed the weakness of CMBR being evidence for the BB and the laughable unseriousness of plaetton's claims. First, if indeed CMBR was unquestioningly evidence of the BB, do you think anyone would be speculating about other alternatives? Its like knowing the exact value of acceleration due to gravity and then wasting time trying to prove it could also be 2.
Secondly, the idea plaetton put forward came from a "reputable" atheist site (so you cant claim christians are trying to make things up). Surely they know about CMBR? why are they skeptical enough about it to propound another theory?

vooks:
What about matter?

plaetton:
Like I said before, this new idea does deny that the big occurred. No.
This idea speculates on pre-bigbang scenario.

Mprex:
op. you only talked about the problems. what about solutions

undercat:
Most the atheists here are nomads who came in from Chad.

undercat:
Your loss.



Its just a matter of directing efforts wisely. You would have to think of how to observe that awareness or subjective experience, in a scientific way. You have to wonder why your current tools don't suffice. Its not simply a matter of getting up and going to the lab to do science.



Science does not understand consciousness. It needs philosophy, as it always does in times of doubt. It is even more pertinent in this case where we can see consciousness so clearly and science can't.

Thsuperiorman:
Phew! Wtf! After going through some of the posts in this chat box, I thought I'd find intelligible and productive discussions about science and/or philosophy outside religion. Unfortunately and disappointedly, it's just a useless chat box for jobless dumb people who are atheists for NO GOOD reason. All you do is quarrel, insult religious people (not that you are any where close to being better than them), raise stupid topics for discussion etc. Smfh... I think I'd "sticky" with the religion rooms, they are more intelligible.

Get a life!

DeevaB:
I will recommend these two movies 1. God's not dead (2014) 2. Left behind (2014). These two movies have helped and moved me a lot. Don't give up there is a God up there even sometimes when it seems he's not there or he can't hear. JustBelieve

benalvino2:
okay from what you have read answer the question

benalvino1:
The atheist points out the principle of the conservation of energy: that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only change forms (it can equally be said that “matter can be neither created nor destroyed…”).

using the conservation of energy to argue against the beginning of the universe reveals confusion about cosmology to begin with. Scientists can extrapolate back to the beginning of the big bang–which is the moment when both space and time came into existence, along with all of the material world. So we know scientifically that there was a moment when there was no matter at all. It was created, not out of other matter, but out of nothing. Here is the key to note: it is once the universe came into existence that the laws of nature came into effect–before the universe, there was nothing.

So if we use the conservation of energy... how did the matter that causes the big bang come in to existence?
How come we as human beings are so well constructed along with animals? Why when we are being formed from which ever bacteria you chose we are formed in male and female?

What kind of chance made us humans? With our eyes, legs, brain, heart, liver, or are they a wonderful construction of a supernatural being?

Howcomes:
Spread the Gospel Light @ www.facebook.com/touchlightpage.

johnydon22:
whatever that means hahahahha.... no be small ooo