The evidence you said doesn't exist: species becoming other species, exists.
Why, because you said you? I'm going to trust my word over yours.Like the theory of evolution?
Becasue someone said so?
Not really.
Do you know what natural selection /environmental adaptation is. we evolve based on our surroundings not the other way around, that's why everything seems so perfectly hit because evolution is the guiding force for life in the universe. Everything works because it's for the betterment of our life, that goes for every single living species on this planet. Millions of years of natural selection. sure you've heard of survival of the fittest.We probably do.
But what do you call skeletons, nervous systems, etc but a design with a purpose?
I'm glad you finally seen the light because I was fearing that you might have been an idiot.
You don't deny Kent Hovinism. It's not worth debating
I thought Atisha was a somewhat funny troll until I realized that he is somebodys neighbour and is maybe allowed to vote
A wolf into a bull dog In less than 7000 years. The evidence is there that small changes begin to add up. And that's only less than 10K years! Imagine 100,000,000!
A discussion needs at least 2 partners. You made it absolutely clear to anyone that you do not care about having any 2nd opinion in your kind of discussion.I thought there was some fair and opened minded woke ass motherfuckers on here willing to hear a person out.
Like the theory of evolution?
Becasue someone said so?
Not really.
You clearly don't. I'm assuming you're one of those people that thinks a scientific "theory" means a "guess."
Like, you don't have to debate him. Your lack of knowledge about how human beings came to exist isn't proof that theirs a magic man in the sky that made us. We can know absolutely nothing and have zero theories about where we come from and... believing that an omnipotent, all powerful being stitched us together from nothing would still be as non-scientific as it is today.Debating Atisha is literally like debating Kent Hovind. He's pulled most of the playbook. Troll or not, it's a waste of time.
FYI, you're literally ripping the man's playbook on evolution debating tactics. The guy you just said was dubious...Now i go look up Kent Hovinsm.
Well first its Hovind. Minor detail i know.
The first few lines state he's a young earth person.
I believe the earth is many billions of years old, because the ever loving slew of evidence supports that contention.
Unlike evolutionary theory....which is a fraud, and a phoney, and has no corroborating evidece whatsoever.
After his dubious claim, i stopped reading.
I think I'd rather say that skeletons or nervous systems have a function rather than a purpose. They exist today because they have aided the various species in their survival throughout the process of evolution and not because someone or something figured we would need it. Take this for instance: Our skeletons still have a tailbone, but we don't have a tail anymore. Our ancestors didn't benefit from having tails, and over time the tails were reduced to nothing. It's essentially the same with any other part of our bodies or nature.We probably do.
But what do you call skeletons, nervous systems, etc but a design with a purpose?
I'll go further. People shouldn't debate people like him, if they value their time.
Now i go look up Kent Hovinsm.
Well first its Hovind. Minor detail i know.
The first few lines state he's a young earth person.
I believe the earth is many billions of years old, because the ever loving slew of evidence supports that contention.
Unlike evolutionary theory....which is a fraud, and a phoney, and has no corroborating evidece whatsoever.
After his dubious claim, i stopped reading.
I don't
I don't have any evidence that the universe is self-created. I just have seen no evidence that it's created. My position is "I don't know" what started it all. It's possible that the universe created itself. The phrase "before the universe" also doesn't make any sense since time began along with our local universe afawk.
I'll go further. People shouldn't debate people like him, if they value their time.
Hence many people are Agnostic and not Atheist.I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.
How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
Hence many people are Agnostic and not Atheist.
However just because we don't know how something came to be, doesn't mean its prove that there is something greater then us. We simply just don't know, and that's fine.
Gnostic, in this context, basically talks about how concrete your beliefs are. Are you 100% or less.Isn't a gnostic atheist an agnostic theist? I find gnostic atheist somewhat contradictory. I mean, gnosticism describes several religious ideas. I find it somewhat confusing.
Anyhow, voted for agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any deity but I won't rule out that they could possibly exist.
I just think about it like this. If nothing existed before our universe than there would be no laws to govern what can or can't happen. Anything can happen or nothing and the universe was that. But this is all ass pulling thinking.I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.
How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
Your main contention which you've blithely paraded around is flawed because
I just think about it like this. If nothing existed before our universe than there would be no laws to govern what can or can't happen. Anything can happen or nothing and the universe was that. But this is all ass pulling thinking.
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.
How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
You have to remember when it comes to religious belief and gods, once you start picking it apart it falls apart.I don't know about any of that, but if we agree that something cannot come from nothing, then either the same should apply to any "god" or the universe could have been born from an earlier universe. So if something cannot come from nothing, then how can a "god" come from nothing?
Design and purpose are to be demonstrated not assumed.Is that not what nature is though?
Who or what force is responsible for all the designs in nature? And make no mistake, these are designs, meant to serve a purpose. It's no accident.
And again, I don't mean a biblical god necessarily, but the idea of there being some kind of creator.
^^^
It does to some. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about it and there is a presentation here:I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.
How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
Gnostic, in this context, basically talks about how concrete your beliefs are. Are you 100% or less.
I'm a gnostic atheist because I believe 100% that God isn't real. I believe it as firmly as I believe that I am real, which is to say, as much as we can say anything with any degree of certainty, I am that certain.
You can split hairs and argue we can't be 100% certain of anything, but that's just a rhetorical argument I haven't got time for really. I'm as certain as can be. I think it's fair to call that 100% certain.
You have to remember when it comes to religious belief and gods, once you start picking it apart it falls apart.