Thread: What is the reason of your existence?

People already knew that this would be a way to argue against the belief off god, anyone could see it. Just because something is not physically there does not mean it's not real. They just want something to believe in really and the big bang is the only logical thing they can grasp onto.

I really hate the phrase "seeing is believing" it's very misleading, but after all they refuse to believe in god even though the big bang is ONLY a theory itself.

Let's think logical for a second here, we don't understand how the universe came to be, right? So therefore if somehing was created that means someone or somehing must of created it? God pehaps

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

People already knew that this would be a way to argue against the belief off god, anyone could see it. Just because something is not physically there does not mean it's not real. They just want something to believe in really and the big bang is the only logical thing they can grasp onto.

Well, the same can be said about believing in God. The reason these arguments go on ad nauseam is typically because the person on the opposite side or on both sides are unable to recognize that they are using arguments that defeat their own beliefs. What people that believe in God say about why he has to exist or how someone has to prove he doesn't exist applies to them and they are literally doing/not doing the exact same thing they say people do/don't do/fail to do/have to do. Alternatively, so do people that say that God does not and cannot exist. Neither side is capable of recognizing how ironic and self-defeating their claims and arguments are, more often than not.

Perhaps the saddest thing in both cases is that people have officially stopped their line of inquiry altogether and willfully close-minded. They are willing to just accept answers that make them more comfortable and gives them a false sense of security and superiority (be it morally or intellectually), or allows them some form of personal gain as a result. Their desire to learn, understand, and explore completely fades, and the dogma they tout becomes integral to their indentity, which in my opinion is one of the most significant contributions to close-mindedness and denial there is. Somebody who identifies as a christian/jew/muslim or a scientist/intellectual/whatever is more likely to defend their stance and ignore evidence when the consequences can affect people other than just them, because for them to be wrong (even just admitting the possibility) means that they are not the person they have believed they were and prided themselves in being for essentially their entire lives. If God isn't real, then I may not be special at all and when I die, I might completely stop existing. If my scientific beliefs aren't true, science cannot adequately explain things that I have been sure of my whole life and my life/experiences are all for nothing or wrong. If I humans don't have intrinsic value outside their own minds, (somehow?) life doesn't have a point at all and that is disturbing to me... etc.

These realizations are shocking and frightening to people, and in order to prevent these types of realizations from ever happening, they deny any possibility that they can be wrong whatsoever. They start to make things up that always wind up confirming after-the-fact that their beliefs are right. Suddenly we have people saying that God can do anything because he's God, there doesn't need to be an explanation. Suddenly we have people believing that science is equivalent to truth and is infallible, rather than being a quest for truth that is meant to eliminate as many variables as possible to make the quest objective as can be. People start using these beliefs to feel superior to and belittle others, to harass others, to manipulate others, to harm others, to silence others, and for personal gain. It's all terribly intellectually dishonest and in my eyes, a disservice to all humankind, including yourself.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

the big bang is ONLY a theory itself.

So is the theory of gravity.

Originally Posted by sloth

So is the theory of gravity.

I don't believe in Gravity either, when something is heavier than air it forces itself to the ground, when something is lighter than air ie a ballon for example, it floats with the air.

I also believe that the world is a flat surface, for that being water can't bend, water always finds it level.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I don't believe in Gravity either, when something is heavier than air it forces itself to the ground, when something is lighter than air ie a ballon for example, it floats with the air.

I also believe that the world is a flat surface, for that being water can't bend, water always finds it level.

Please define "heavy" without the requirement for gravity.
What form of locomotion does it use to "force" itself to the ground?

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I really hate the phrase "seeing is believing" it's very misleading, but after all they refuse to believe in god even though the big bang is ONLY a theory itself.

Let's think logical for a second here, we don't understand how the universe came to be, right? So therefore if somehing was created that means someone or somehing must of created it? God pehaps

I've already covered the theory in the regular sense of the word is different than a scientific theory. That isn't a valid argument. Scientific theories are the highest form of established ideas, even about scientific laws. Scientific laws are nothing more than facts, which as I've covered are merely observations. They don't need to be anything more than observed. Scientific theories cannot be scientific theories unless they are so well observed, tested, and have so much corroborating evidence that we are as sure as we can be at this moment in time that the theory is in fact true.

About something creating the universe: it seems a natural assumption come up with that it was created by God, but it is by no means right. Not only is it not possible to prove (or disprove, making it an impossible for it to be judged true... or false), but it is not sufficient in explaining the origin of the universe to its fullest. In order for the universe to originate, God must create it. However, how, when, where did God originate? Down to its lowest level, it does not sufficiently explain the inception of the universe, and nor is it able to be proven. It's an illogical assumption to make and base one's lifestyle and actions on. I already established the the Big Bang Theory does not establish how the universe originated and doesn't attempt to, so the inability to answer the question does not discredit the Big Bang Theory. Neither does the inability to explain the origin of the universe prove it was created or even suggest that it was created by God. We have no way of knowing, period.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I don't believe in Gravity either, when something is heavier than air it forces itself to the ground, when something is lighter than air ie a ballon for example, it floats with the air.

I also believe that the world is a flat surface, for that being water can't bend, water always finds it level.

You need to provide evidence that the earth is flat, and we have loads of empirical data that confirm it's round. Heaviness and weight have to have some force or mechanism for existing, please explain how something is heavier than something else and why it would fall down and not up, left, or right. Explain how we can circumnavigate the globe without ever being able to fall off or meet the edges of the flat disc that our planet would be (please, a conspiracy theory is not a valid explanation), or why other planetary and celestial bodies in our solar system are globes rather than flat discs. Explain the Coriolis Effect. Explain how the ice caps don't melt if the disc does not orbit the sun, but simply move in a circle adjacent to it for no apparent reason. Explain how the atmospheric scattering of light is what allows the poles to remain so cold--if the earth were not a globe and it did not rotate while orbiting the sun, how that atmospheric scattering even occurs.

Also, what do you mean water can't bend? Are you saying it can't fill a volume in any shape? What about a U shaped prism completely filled with water? The water is not "level" in the sense you are talking about. What about water in a balloon? What about putting water in a centrifuge and observing that the water is "bent" like you say it can't be due to centrifugal force? If water can't be anything but level (ignoring smaller disturbances like waves), what about the tides? How can a place like the Bay of Fundy exist, where the tidal range is 55 feet (meaning every day and night, the water level raises and lowers 55 feet)?

edit: actually, I'm (well, we) are starting to hijack this thread. If you want to continue this Josh, make a flat earth thread (well, I might even myself). I'd like to debate it, I'm interested in your answers, but it's not fair to Sakki to do it here.