Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rubato Garcia
New member
Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
kingblaze84
New member
Interesting points
Rubato Garcia;7493850 said:Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
But that's the thing though, Earth and its systems are way more intricate than a table. If you'd never heard of manmade furniture you would probably realize anyway that what you were seeing wasn't part of nature, because of how they appeared so out of place from your average rocks, and sticks. What you would be seeing is something that was obviously crafted and designed.
For instance say somebody in the 60's stumbled across a laptop from today. They wouldn't be able to identify what they were seeing, but they would know that it wasn't some naturally occurring object.
Rubato Garcia
New member
So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
Rubato Garcia;7494018 said:So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Rubato Garcia
New member
I think you're oversimplifying the atheist argument. It's not that earth "just happened," it's that it happened as a result of biological processes rather than the intelligent design of some mystical being.
Ajackson17
New member
It really isn't but atheism requires as much logical thinking as theism does. Its not like people are born in atheist houses much, but are brought up as Christians or theists. So they usually come to it on their own. Some get into oother spiritual paths due to their thinking and debating amongst themselves.
King_sorrow
New member
Stiff;7494039 said:Rubato Garcia;7494018 said:So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Rubato Garcia;7494075 said:I think you're oversimplifying the atheist argument. It's not that earth "just happened," it's that it happened as a result of biological processes rather than the intelligent design of some mystical being.
Well not necessarily the Earth "just happening" but the entire Big Bang Theory is basically saying that the Universe "just happened", just in scientific jargon
King_sorrow;7494178 said:Stiff;7494039 said:Rubato Garcia;7494018 said:So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Well if you believe in some supreme being that kind of clears it up. A supreme being that always was so didn't have to be created. Life on earth didn't always exist and according to science neither did the universe, so there's no way to explain it coming from nothingness, by itself.
Oya_Husband;7494125 said:It really isn't but atheism requires as much logical thinking as theism does. Its not like people are born in atheist houses much, but are brought up as Christians or theists. So they usually come to it on their own. Some get into oother spiritual paths due to their thinking and debating amongst themselves.
Yeah I'm by no means saying that any religion is logical. I'm just countering this stance that I encounter from Atheists sometimes (on the internet) that they have some kind of reasoned high ground to stand on.
Rubato Garcia
New member
Stiff;7494249 said:King_sorrow;7494178 said:Stiff;7494039 said:Rubato Garcia;7494018 said:So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Well if you believe in some supreme being that kind of clears it up. A supreme being that always was so didn't have to be created. Life on earth didn't always exist and according to science neither did the universe, so there's no way to explain it coming from nothingness, by itself.
Other than "because that's what I was taught," explain to me how you know that supreme beings exist, and how they don't have to be created because they have always existed.
Rubato Garcia;7494302 said:Stiff;7494249 said:King_sorrow;7494178 said:Stiff;7494039 said:Rubato Garcia;7494018 said:So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Well if you believe in some supreme being that kind of clears it up. A supreme being that always was so didn't have to be created. Life on earth didn't always exist and according to science neither did the universe, so there's no way to explain it coming from nothingness, by itself.
Other than "because that's what I was taught," explain to me how you know that supreme beings exist, and how they don't have to be created because they have always existed.
I know nothing of the sort. beliefs =/= knowledge . However, the existence of a supreme being (or beings) would explain the origin of the universe more adequately than any currently regarded scientific theory.
Rubato Garcia
New member
So we just need a better theory. I'd buy that, maybe the Big Bang isn't the answer either but that doesn't validate Creationism. One explanation being more "adequate" than the other doesn't mean they aren't both wrong.
32DaysOfInfiniti
New member
If you really believe in Jesus you know its not about anything in this life, so none of these question even matter
Rubato Garcia;7494332 said:So we just need a better theory. I'd buy that, maybe the Big Bang isn't the answer either but that doesn't validate Creationism. One explanation being more "adequate" than the other doesn't mean they aren't both wrong.
Well in this case one of them HAS to be right. Either the universe created itself or something created the universe. Most astronomers agree that the universe hasn't existed forever because of the way its expanding.
b4rPnQrC32H4cT
New member
I can't say for certain that no higher power exists and by higher power I don't necessarily mean the deities describe in the various religions we know.
And as far as trying to understand unexplained natural phenomena, there's no reason scientists should stop looking for those answers; the discoveries made from their work can help us, or destroy us, either way.
And as far as trying to understand unexplained natural phenomena, there's no reason scientists should stop looking for those answers; the discoveries made from their work can help us, or destroy us, either way.
Kinda way off the topic, but this was my first thought when read your opening post..
I wonder what the people on the planet thought PRIOR to any religious doctrine coming about, thought, when they saw a fellow human die for the first time. Then come to realize they're not waking up, decaying, etc.. because now we have the books that give us some comfort in believing it is all part of a plan and that more is to come.
I wonder what the people on the planet thought PRIOR to any religious doctrine coming about, thought, when they saw a fellow human die for the first time. Then come to realize they're not waking up, decaying, etc.. because now we have the books that give us some comfort in believing it is all part of a plan and that more is to come.
That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
Last edited:
