Well that certainly is the point of this topic. It may not be logical to come to any conclutions where there is still so much more information that can change your beliefs. In my search for truth, i just keeps comming back to one thing. And you should take it seriously, you are essentialy gambling with your soul when you come a conclution --- Double Post Merged, Jun 11, 2016 --- The fact of the matter is you don't have to mold your own moral code, there is a perfect unmoving standard for us to aspire to. Morality is not subjective
What happens when you die? Your corpse rots and decomposes. You live on in the memories of a few, but eventually even that fades. Eventually its as if you never existed. Ultimately, you are worthless. You are but a single mote in the in the spans of the universe, infinitesimally insignificant to its well being. You have no inherent purpose in life, no meaning... Aside from what you create for yourself. Strive to be authentic and define yourself!
Nah, I'm good. I've had enough religion force fed to me during my upbringing, having been raised Catholic and attended Catholic school from Pre-K through 12. Contrary to popular belief, Existentialism doesn't necessarily mandate atheism. You can be an Existentialist and a Christian.
Religeon < God It's personal first, commune second. Don't let bad examples keep you from the joy of relations with your creator.
You have no relationship with your creator. God is not a sentient being, but rather the aggregate sum of all existence that ever was and ever will be. You exist in God and God exists in you.
See, you've already set yourself up for failure by comming to a conclution. That is the worst possible thing you can do is come to conclutions. That link you sent me is a good read, i bookmarked it for later. But need to adress what seems to be you identifying with this man and his trials, and because of this alot of his world view clicks with you. This is a trap, you are submiting to your deep rooted psychological tuning. Overcome that. Never stop seeking the truth no matter how much you resent it
i don't know whether or not i should take sources that obviously suffer from conformation bias without referencing something other then their own websites as sources seriously. actually, the source linked in the second video doesn't even work, i just get a blank page with no information, how is that even reliable? also, the universe is infinite, there is no god. since infinity is a concept we can't comprehend your argument is invalid. sorry but inifinity is a concept we can comprehend, infinity just means no end to it, that's about it, it only gets crazy when you try to quantify it as a physical element but the problem is that isn't possible, its a concept of never ending. you're also assuming that because the universe exists something created it for a reason, well then, since god exists in infinity, the "fact" that he exists must mean he was created and was created by someone for some reason with a choice, who created god? for anything to exist it must've had a start even if it doesn't have an end. assumptions are fun. i'm sorry but i just don't like it when someone is trying to argue for the proof of something based entirely upon their own personal assumptions with absolutely no evidence for it. 2+2 != 1000000000000000000, just because the universe exists does not mean someone created it and that their was a choice involved. it's entirely your prerogative to have "faith" but please don't try and indoctrinate others. i'd also like to point out that theory in scientific meaning is a lot more then just someones personal idea, its an idea that they have found proof for, and the model created has proven to accurately predict observations we have found. if there wasn't any evidence for it then it would still just be an hypothesis. it takes a TONE of evidence for an hypothesis to become a theory. you're also the one making the assertions so the burden of proof is on you, please provide some if at all possible.
yes, sucha great moral example. http://www.thehypertexts.com/Bible Satanic Verses.htm which god to you prefer i pick? personally i'd go with allah for obvious patriarchal reasons.
Sorry about the broken link that's strange. And yeah they are biased. But it doesn't matter, bias is everywhere you go, scientific theory is littered with bias. Biased information is only an issue for those who cannot think for themselves, if you cannot discern the difference for yourself you live in a dangerous world. If you can however, than it doesn't matter, all that matters are the points they are presenting. And you are wrong, there are no actual infinites. It is a logical falicy to make such a claim when our existance is so obviously finite. If you can't understand this than i may not be able to help you. Here is some material for further study:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity
So... Jumping straight into to middle of the religous wars is not a good place to start, maybe you should re asses the OP, i adress this. First we must confront the existance of a creator before we can move forward. I will for now say that, context is key.
wait, so god isn't infinite? how is experimenting, testing, observing and math biased? yes bias does matter, it means taht even if they have facts they're going to twist teh facts to suite their agenda and that is a big problem. --- Double Post Merged, Jun 12, 2016 --- your OP was trying to prove the existance of god to argue for an afterlife wasn't it? it sounded like you're crusading to try and convince people about a god existing more then discussing about death to me.
Everything within our universe that we observe is finite. If there is a creator, it could not be bound by the laws it created. And infinites do not have beginings Science doesn't say anything, scientists do. It's all about how you interpret the information we gather.
Is this what christians are like? Like, vehemently opposing any form or thought? For me; Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not.
there is no interpretation though, that's the information and that's it with science. if we just inerpreted it how we like isntead of using the information as is to accurately predict how the world works then stuff like computers, your car, house, electricity, phone, wireless, the entire modern world wouldn't exist scientific theories are just the attempt to explain the information.
There are so many different subjects being discussing in this topic that I don't even know where to begin. I think there is ultimately no way for us to know what happens when we die, until we die, and perhaps there will be nobody left to know anything at that point. The most we can have (unless you've already died, and even then people dispute the accounts given of what happens) is a belief. I certainly have my own belief, but it's not something I really care to talk about. I suppose I feel that my belief is mine for a reason, and other people believe what they believe for a reason. Or, there's no reason for any of it. Either way, a belief about what will happen is irrelevant. If I could believe something into happening... (I don't think I need to finish that statement). We can say we know what happens, but there are many people that claim to know, and what they know varies greatly. At most, we can have an inner knowing. But then again, I come back to the point of wondering why this inner knowing matters. Discussions on this subject always end up just like my post so far...everyone talks in circles. From that standpoint, it's a pointless discussion. However, I would say that there can be some value in pondering questions like these, and perhaps that was the intent behind this thread. Going to some of the broader discussions, I typically find myself hesitant to identify with or adopt any particular religion or belief systems. There are things in each of them that ring true to me, and things in each of them that don't. Since I don't feel like I can say with any degree of certainty what is true, I generally find myself pointing out inconsistencies in the various points of view. So naturally, that's what I feel drawn to do here. I can't agree that morality is not subjective, unless your meaning when using that word is entirely different than what the word actually means. Morals are unique to the group of people that agree on them. They vary greatly by geographical region, era, and of course religion. Morality is rooted in belief. Not saying I agree or disagree, but your statement earlier that "you are essentialy gambling with your soul when you come a conclution" is hard to accept when you then go on to state numerous conclusions. Or did you just mean that you're gambling if you come to the 'wrong' conclusion? If so, that's an entirely different can of worms, lol.
I'm presenting an idea, that is taken seriously, and should be taken seriously. And then i go on to give evidence that has been established and is grounded in reality. I'm forward about my pre-existinf bias. We all come to form opinions, the issue arises once we cease to continue developing them. --- Double Post Merged, Jun 12, 2016 --- Exatly my point, when we begin to speculate, that is where the bias begins, and it is unavoidable. So just learn to use discernmant
but a scientific theory isn't speculation, it has proven it self to accuaretly predict reality, hypothesis are the ones that are more speculative
To be clear, this topic at it's core about being open to new information. And then i go on to give a reason why this perticular field of study should be taken seriously, beacuase wether or not you believe in somthing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So if you take away anything from this: Keep seeking the truth My own personal journey has led me back to a point repeatedly, hence my bias. But of course, i will continue to welcome new information