...Philosophically it can be debated, yes. The perception of time changes all the time within psychology. Time is a very fluid concept to the mind which by extension means your observation of time is hinged upon how the mind interprets it. The mind can interpret it faster by simply increasing the amount of stimuli allowed by the eyes giving the appearance of slow motion.
Actually, animals killing one another is quite common. It usually comes about through the fight for dominance in a clan/pack/whatever. source It's all part of the competition aspect of the selection process. The weaker chimps are killed or blocked from mating, which prevents their genes from entering the next generation's gene pool.
Its not though. It would be if not for technologies. On a base level i suppose you could say that it was fluid... as in judging in and out of the influence of adrenaline and other stuff like that. However when i think of time i think of it as something definitive, intangible, and unbiased. It will always be the time in between two finite events that will not change to our knowledge. If i'm arguing for prospers cause i really don't care.
Animals can kill and fight for jealous reasons. Primates do it often. Just watch a documentary on Chimps or Orangutans. They fight over women all the time. The may not bust them in the face with a 9 millimeter but they do fight over females the same way we do and have a sense of jealously when their female is less than monogamous.
How? Would you not say that Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism, though they can be profound, contain core elements which you find untruthful and by there persuasion of millions of people deserve the title of the biggest lie?
Regardless, that has no bearing on the truth value of a religion and as such means that you believe all other religions are lies and that the personal experiences that are built upon in their religion are fabricated whereas yours are true.
Religion is not the biggest lie. That title belongs to telling a child that there is a magic man in the sky controlling everything. Every time I imagine a child being told that the reason the sun shines and the stars flicker are because of this lie, I can only hope that the child asks that enduring question: Why? There's no answer to that question because there is no reason that question should have to be asked.
No, the question is "Why is there a magic man in the sky controlling everything?" Why does he do it? What does he gain from doing it? What is his purpose? And the question does not apply to the Universe. It's not an entity that dictates how things work, it's merely a defined system, in this case, all things that physically exist. There's no "why" to it's existence, merely it's definition.
I think that's a really good question. Why is there a universe rather than no universe? But since we're on the topic of the universe and its existence you realize that you can contest the universe's existence, right? It's really not that hard. Assuming that the universe does exist and is real we take the next step of your argument. "Why is there a universe?" You also add in that if I can't say why it exists that it must not but this is a fallacy. Just because I don't know why something is doesn't mean something isn't. Likewise, just because I don't know why god is doesn't mean he isn't. However, there are two main differences between something and god. Something has an ontology and something is in the natural, observable world, whereas god has no ontology and is supernatural. Asking the question, "why is there a god?" doesn't disprove god's existence but it calls into question the necessity of a god and if a god is not necessary then why should we call it a god (because a god with no purpose is no god at all). But I'm just rambling. Shiruken never said anything about saying why to disprove god but to call into question what the child is being told, that's all.
You're wrong today i saw a cat playing with a live chipmonk, hitting it around a bit, and then killing it for "food". In biology i learned that when Whales capture a baby sea lion they will drag it out to sea and toss it 10 feet in the air for a while, and finally killing and eating it.
Sorry, but my next statement doesn't really go with the current debate. It has do with the overall idea though. First of All. there is no proof that the universe is finite. I suspect we will never really know. Second of all, may people believe that there are multiple universes contrary to what most people think. That, too, cannot be proven (or disprove, mind you.) What am I getting at? Well, we do not know much about the universe or whats beyond. We have no idea where or what the boundaries are even if there are boundaries. Even if there are boundaries, there may be other universes which must be in some type of area. There is no way we could find that area's boundaries if there are any. Secondly, why does the universe need a creator either way? To create the universe, a god would need to create energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Here's the big point, why does the universe need a creator when God doesn't?
That assumes, of course, that a god plays by our physical laws. I'm sure those who promote this idea will claim he isn't limited by thermodynamics.
I understand this. However, I fail to see a shred of proof behind this statement. 1. Why does one being (or many) get to break the rules of what it/she/he created? 2. Why can nothing else break the rules? 3.No proof of broken rules.
That's one of the major arguments both for and against the existence of a god. Those against would say that everything is governed by the physical laws and therefore the god could never accomplish that which he is said to accomplish. Conversely, those who believe in a god claim that the god is outside of the system it creates and therefore does not have the same requirements. It's an endless argument because neither group can disprove the other's claim because there is no evidence supporting either side. However, the methods by which each claim is argued differ greatly. The promoter of the god idea would claim that they believe their god to transcend physical law and live outside the rules of our Universe. The key to their argument is that they believe it to be true because it must be true for their God to function. The promoter of the lack of a god would claim that there is a lack of evidence to support the existence of a god that supersedes our Universe. Because of this lack of fact, they claim that no conclusion can be made regarding the answer. There is insufficient information. The key to their argument is that there is not enough evidence to verify the existence of a god.
Not even close This analogy is way off the mark. There is plenty of evidence for the likelihood of a car coming in the other direction given what we know about traffic. When you have a red light the street running perpendicular will obviously have a green light so the evidence points towards the probability of a car or several cars coming in that direction. A more appropriate analogy would be: There is lack of evidence to support that there is a Saber Tooth Tiger hiding in my bedroom closet. Shall I open it?
Exactly, there is a lack of evidence but you can draw some reasonable conclusions that there probably isn't a sabre tooth tiger chilling in there waiting to kill you. Similarly, you can hypothesize that the possibility of a magic man controlling everything from outside the bounds of the Universe is unlikely. However, in no way are you concluding anything. A conclusion requires verifiable evidence, of which there is none.