Life has no logical purpose

I believe life its self has no meaning, its up to you to put meaning into your life.

 

You're an idiot, to say these two aren't intertwined in the ideological plane is ignorance at it's best. Also if we're using logical facts and science to back up our claims, and therefor also arguing the small sections of each claim then thats not only being philosophical it's being scientific. Please respond next time with a much better argument because this one was pointless.

These are both examples of personal meanings to life not collective ones.

 

Who cares about current logic? Logic doesn't explain God, nor does it explain how the Earth itself even began. You cannot say that "something cannot be created out of nothing" if the whole idealogy, and purpose of God, is exactly that. You can hear people constantly using the "Then where did God come from?" card, but it's rarer to hear "Where did everything come from, if not from nothing?"

tl;dr : Number 3 contradicts the whole idea like a paradox.

 

Yes it does and under logic god doesn't exist.

um yes it does? As does science. We can conclude that the earth was formed a certain period after the big bang by large chunks of rock being pulled together by gravity and after a long enough time (and alot of other events I'm not going into) boom we have earth.

*SHOCK* you mean something can't be right if it contradicts the idea of god?
The closest thing we have to something being created out of nothing is virtual particles, and even these don't "appear from nothing" they simply come from the background of spacetime where quantum mechanics take place.

Something cannot be created out of nothing if we follow the rule of conservation of mass and energy. Visually something probably can appear out of nothing but that would be because it was previously something non-visible.

We know it can't come from nothing, however the problem is we can't see that far back. We can see to the edges of our universe, our seeable universe that is. We can only see 15 billion years back after that we can't see or know what happened because there was no light.

It's kind of like this:
Imagine a pond, and above this pond is a rock thats barely clinging onto the cliff. One day the rock just loses it's hold and falls into the pond creating a ripple. Now the ripple will flow out in equal and all directions.

We can track that ripple back to its originating point but thats all we can do. It doesn't mean the energy from the falling rock never existed before that beginning ripple it just means that we can't see it.

So we aren't sure what happened before the big bang, however we can definitely say through logic that god sure didn't create the universe.

No number 3 contradicts god apparently.

 

What this all comes down to is yes.. Something cannot be created out of nothing but we learn more and more astounding things every day.

Recently the entire physics community got mindfucked due to the fact that they have found several major flaws in einstein's theory including the existence of "unlimited".

If we are just barely finding this out who's to say it's not a question of if.. but a question of when we will find out.

^^

 

You, and many other supposed "scientists" don't have any proof of the event "The Big Bang". If you did have proof of it, I guess you would have PROOF that God doesn't exist. It's obvious there is no proof of the non-existance of God, just like there is no proof that he DOES exist.

While using "Under current logic" as a sentence starter, I think it just shows that we really have no idea what we are talking about. We move with "the times", while making new "theories" that contradict older ones. Yes, you can call this evolution and progress. Call it what you like, actually, but I seem to believe if we are on the topic of logic, then my "logical" explanation is that we humans contradict ourselves so much, who knows whats true.

 

i think love has a reason.

we were all programmed when we were made.


and we need to fullfil that even though we dont know this.

 

The process of red shift and the curvature of spacetime shows us evidence of the big bang. The expansion of the universe is obvious enough to show this, the farthest point we can see back to is the big bang, this is when light first illuminated so we up to this point. I already explained about anything possibly occurring before.

Actually, we can't sense him with any of our many senses. He only exists in faith which isn't any sort of knowledge, and the only thing that can prove him is the book which proves itself. So if you disprove every small tidbit that does prove him then yes he is disproven.

Logic is the pathways we use to determine our own understanding of certain events/concepts. Logic doesn't "change" just the supporting evidence we receive does. Science changes, so instead of saying under current logic it should be under current scientific ideas however it's much simpler to say logic.

We know whats true by the evidence at the time. Atleast with science we are able to say "we didn't know this before" or "we didn't think of this in this fashion" so we're not finding anything new, it's always been there we just have to discover it. So we don't contradict ourselves, we better ourselves.

 

Life is simply the Universe's most successful way of creating entropy. That is the purpose of life, and there's no denying it.

 

So you think life's purpose is to self destruct?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

/gamed

Please, stop being ignorant and LOOK SOMETHING UP before you say anything about it. There is a plethora of evidence for the Big Bang and a simple Google search would have shown that.

 

Then tell me.. How do we have a bunch of "Laws" that the universe follows.. then, we discover something that doesn't quite follow them. What do we say? Ohhhh, that's it.. it's excluded from it, because it's different. We humans have no clue what we are talking about. We can act smart all we like, and pretend we know the universe inside out.. we don't have a clue.

 

So because we don't have a complete understanding of our universe, all theories regarding the universe are inherently wrong? I mean, that's essentially what you're saying here. You asked for evidence, it was provided, and now you're saying it's wrong because we "don't have a clue". In reality - we have much more than a clue. Just because we haven't unified every single observational report into one law/set of laws doesn't mean that we are completely and utterly clueless on our universe. That is ignorance to say the least.

You don't make sense. I've seen you say that you're an atheist in other threads.. so I ask you what exactly you believe in? If you refuse to accept the evidence I have provided you with despite probably believing in the big bang yourself I can do nothing more than assume you simply want to argue, in which case I will resign any further debate with you. It's pointless trying to converse, much less debate, with a person who is completely unwilling to listen to the other side.

 

Actually, I never said all theories were wrong. I pointed out that many things we see as correct, or understood in "The Universe" are infact wrong, or just a simple observation of it, with no deeper thought. How can you prove God doesn't exist? If you could prove that, then Religion would already be dead and gone. If you are so convinced he doesn't exist, why don't you just go and prove it.

You cannot say I am unwilling to listen to the other side, when you are blatently pointing out your opinion as fact. As I've said, I don't believe in God, but I don't attack those who do, and I respect their beliefs. This is something you obviously, evidently cannot do. You have repeatedly responded to me with your "Fact", but it's all just your opinion.

 

*sigh*

What makes me laugh is that this is a continuous argument going no where.

All I see is the pathetic "You can't prove he doesn't exist" and the "Prove he exist." Both sides (sides that have been arguing lately) think it must be one or the other...


Also something everyone needs to understand. We have evidence and facts. Science tries to find the truth to things we might not understand. The thing that I find extremely annoying, is some of you keep arguing saying science was wrong for this so they could be wrong for this. We don't know everything, so we try with what we know. They may have misunderstandings or errors sometimes, never claimed science is all knowing. That's what your "God" is there for. To fill that absence we all have, but you chose to believe in He, She, God whatever and accept everything as truth.

Argument of ignorance. Such fun with some.

 

Please explain to me where I EVER at ANY point in my post(s) claimed my own beliefs as facts. I have done quite the contrary on many other threads by saying that I accept the possibility of God, but do not consider it a likely truth and therefore am an atheist. In the particular post you quoted, I made no mention of my own beliefs but merely pointed out that you have it out for both sides. You think that religious tolerance means not voicing opinions if it clashes with that of religion. How can you say that many of the theories regarding the universe are incorrect? If they held no standard, we would not use them. It's that simple. They're at least PARTIALLY correct, so just because they don't paint the full picture does not mean we are "clueless", as you put it. To say otherwise really is nothing more than ignorance, and is degrading towards science. For someone who is all about religious tolerance, you don't seem to be very tolerant of the scientific viewpoint. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

I also never said anywhere that I could prove/disprove the existence of God, and have no intentions of ever trying to do so. You can't give religion this VIP ticket in debate. After all, the point of debate is to present arguments discrediting the other side. If that, no matter how peaceful it is presented, is an "attack" on religion by your standards then you seriously need to reevaluate your understanding of a debate. Btw, I am starting college in the Fall with a minor in Religious/Philosophical studies, so I'm probably the last person on this thread to have it out for religion. Please only post if you can actually look past your undying need to argue about something and understand what I'm saying here.

 

purpose = live your life and have fun

 

You have the words "Religion is Ignorance" in your signature. You know what ignorance is? You having that in your signature. Also, you didn't even read my post, so don't bother. "That's what your god is there for.", when I clearly stated I don't believe in God. I am attempting to say I have respect for those who do believe in God. You have no respect whatsoever, which is Ignorance in itself, so please don't call something other than yourself ignorant with that ignorant comment in your signature.

 

Why do we bother replying to this idiot? He obviously doesn't know the difference between disrespect and respectfully telling them they are wrong with supporting facts.

Kid seriously, all you keep saying is we don't respect people with religion and whatever, when in actuality we do. We just make sure to present the facts to them and tell them why they are wrong. Them believing in what we just proved wrong afterwards is ignorance.

Get a better argument or actually support your argument because right now all I'm seeing is a someone who can't even explain why he's right.

 

Can you explain to me how religion is not ignorance? Religion does not have a belief system with any sort of method to explain it's validity. Religion forces you to rely on "faith". Blind faith = ignorance. Just because he did not go about saying it in the most respectful manner does not make him "ignorant". You need to get it through your thick skull that ignorance and respect are NOT the same word. We've explained to you time and time again that we're not trying to be disrespectful, but your own ignorance has not allowed you to see that. The guy you quoted was not in on the original arguments so I don't get how you're using him as a way to back up your original argument that we're being ignorant/disrespectful.