Whether or not there is God(s)

[?Impact]

So there is no God because you are able to make Sushi

Cooking something instead of making it sushi is much simpler and human will prefer to follow simplest way. This is why God gave us "fire".

No, there is no credible evidence of God.

Thank you for acknowledging the difference between a preference and a need.

[Altai]

No, there is no credible evidence of God.

Thank you for acknowledging the difference between a preference and a need.

I show you the credible evidences and you ignore them.

Adaptation aims to simplify, not to complicate. Cooking something is simple than making it sushi.

[dialamah]

So there is no God because you are able to make Sushi

Cooking something instead of making it sushi is much simpler and human will prefer to simplest way. This is why God gave us "fire".

I believed very strongly in God at one time and employed all the same arguments you and other religious people use. To me, personally, the 'big bang' theory of creation is as believable as the 'God' theory of creation. Life, the earth, the way in which we all fit is a miracle to me - whether it came from God or not. I can be grateful and appreciative of what is, without needing to reference any God.

Ultimately, I lost my belief in God because of the way he's described - he seeks to torture people eternally for the sin of not obeying him. That is incredibly petty, not to mention illogical, for an omnipotent/omniscient being who claims to be all about love and forgiveness. As imperfect as I am, if someone is seeking to please me I want them to do it entirely voluntarily - not because I promise them great reward for doing it, or great punishment for not doing it.

Edited September 17, 2016 by dialamah

[?Impact]

I show you the credible evidences and you ignore them.

Obviously you need to understand what credible means.

Blue sky, ergo God - is not credible.

Fire, ergo God - is not credible.

You talk about simplification, yet ignore physics which is far better at explaining simplification than God. Yes it is far from completely understood, but friggen magic is not a better explanation.

[Altai]

Obviously you need to understand what credible means.

Blue sky, ergo God - is not credible.

Fire, ergo God - is not credible.

You talk about simplification, yet ignore physics which is far better at explaining simplification than God. Yes it is far from completely understood, but friggen magic is not a better explanation.

I dont say these things alone are proof for the existence of God. I say there are many many examples like these ones and mathematically its impossible these much of possibilities to happen at the same time. We need to cook our foods and da daaa, there is fire. It was 50% probability to happen and it happen "by chance". Blue color gives us feeling of eternity and da daaaa the sky is colored blue, it was %14 probability to happen and it happened "by chance" again. We need to rest and da daaa, there is night. It was %50 probability to happen and it happened "by chance". There are billions even more such things happens and its impposible to happen "by chance".

[?Impact]

mathematically its impossible these much of possibilities to happen at the same time

Yes, the old 'mathematically' BS. Well mathematically it is +n times more impossible that a God would happen. This friggen magic explanation is friggen boring.

[-TSS-]

State and church should be separated here in Europe as well. It is unbelievable that there is a so-called state-church or "recognised religion".

Having said that in the USA there is no state-church as there are so many religions and no other western country has as many religious nutjobs as the USA.

[Michael Hardner]

State and church should be separated here in Europe as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries

Note the section on Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden.

[Altai]

Yes, the old 'mathematically' BS. Well mathematically it is +n times more impossible that a God would happen. This friggen magic explanation is friggen boring.

Can you calculate the possibility of having only one Sun around the World ? Its crazy !!!

[?Impact]

no other western country has as many religious nutjobs as the USA.

To be fair, only China and India have larger populations than the USA so I wouldn't expect any (comparatively) smaller European country to have more nutjobs. China has held the nutjobs in place by having many years of bigger nutjobs in power.

We are whoever drifting from the "is there a God" theme.

[?Impact]

Can you calculate the possibility of having only one Sun around the World ?

Empirical evidence suggests it is about 45%. Slightly more than 50% of observed solar systems are binary or more.

[Altai]

Empirical evidence suggests it is about 45%. Slightly more than 50% of observed solar systems are binary or more.

Its ridicilous to say %50, there are averagely 300 billion suns in our galaxy and its a crazy possibility to have only one of them near our World.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Altai

[Altai]

Why do cows give us milk ? There is no any other creature on the earth other than human and baby cows benefits from it. If there is no human, what would happen to their milk, it would just cause them to suffer.

[dialamah]

Why do cows give us milk ? There is no any other creature on the earth other than human and baby cows benefits from it. If there is no human, what would happen to their milk, it would just cause them to suffer.

Humans have also drunk milk from goats, yaks, buffalo, camels and even horses in some instances. It's not that these animals produce milk for us, but they do for their young and we take it.

Also, cows (or any other mammal) would only produce enough milk for their own young. However, we humans keep milking them so they keep producing milk. The same will happen with a woman; as long as milk is taken from her breasts, she'll keep producing milk. Wet nurses were used by nobility to feed their babies, and also for babies where the mother died, was too sick to nurse or just didn't produce enough milk.

[Altai]

Humans have also drunk milk from goats, yaks, buffalo, camels and even horses in some instances. It's not that these animals produce milk for us, but they do for their young and we take it.

Also, cows (or any other mammal) would only produce enough milk for their own young. However, we humans keep milking them so they keep producing milk. The same will happen with a woman; as long as milk is taken from her breasts, she'll keep producing milk. Wet nurses were used by nobility to feed their babies, and also for babies where the mother died, was too sick to nurse or just didn't produce enough milk.

Cows also give milk when they dont have babies. They always produce milk and they produce much higher amounts when compared to other animals which you mentioned. Women does not produce milk when they dont have babies because of some hormones such as prolactin, so its a wrong proposition.

[Altai]

Humans have also drunk milk from goats, yaks, buffalo, camels and even horses in some instances. It's not that these animals produce milk for us, but they do for their young and we take it.

Also, cows (or any other mammal) would only produce enough milk for their own young. However, we humans keep milking them so they keep producing milk. The same will happen with a woman; as long as milk is taken from her breasts, she'll keep producing milk. Wet nurses were used by nobility to feed their babies, and also for babies where the mother died, was too sick to nurse or just didn't produce enough milk.

I have asked to my father about the issue because he was raised in a village and his family had many animals including cows. He confirms what you say. I always thought that cows continuously produce milk. I hate people who insisnt on their mistakes and currently I hate myself.

[dialamah]

I have asked to my father about the issue because he was raised in a village and his family had many animals including cows. He confirms what you say. I always thought that cows continuously produce milk. I hate people who insisnt on their mistakes and currently I hate myself.

Don't hate yourself, you are one of the best people I've seen to admit when you've made a mistake. Lots of people can't do that. Me too, sometimes.

[The_Squid]

So now that cows follow biology and are not miracle-milk-makers for humans, does that mean there are no gods?

[Guest]

Well...we can see why it is important to indoctrinate supernatural beliefs at a young age. Critical thinking and knowledge are the enemy of religion.

This thread has started off with some incredibly silly examples put forth as evidence of the supernatural; but, there are questions we don't have answers for. So when we move past sky colour and milk to the unexplained, do supernatural phenomena and gods become a viable answer?

For example, we don't know exactly how the first living organisms or even self replicating chemicals came to exist on Earth. Sure we have some plausible ideas, but no definitive answers. Can gods be used to answer the question of how life began on Earth? Of course not, the correct answer is we don't know, yet.

We don't have any evidence for the existence of anything supernatural so putting that idea forth to answer a question is no more credible than saying what we know as the Universe is really just a computer simulation or the science project of an 11 year old, giant, tentacled alien being named Eric. Putting forth untestable ideas, with zero evidence as possible solutions, is not only silly, but also creates more questions than they answer.

Those who would claim gods or computers or Eric the alien as an answer to life, the universe and everything, have just created the new question of 'so how was this god or computer created'. Like kids explaining how Santa Claus travels around the world in one night, ridiculous god claims like these can only be put forth as answers by people who have already been made to believe in their existence.

Which, brings me back to my first points that it is critical to indoctrinate supernatural beliefs at a young age and that critical thinking and knowledge are the enemy of the gods.

[?Impact]

There is no any other creature on the earth other than human and baby cows benefits from it.

Obviously you are not a framer either.

Cows also give milk when they dont have babies.

Yup, not a farmer. Do you know what a heifer is?

Its ridicilous to say %50, there are averagely 300 billion suns in our galaxy and its a crazy possibility to have only one of them near our World.

Nor an astronomer.

[Altai]

So now that cows follow biology and are not miracle-milk-makers for humans, does that mean there are no gods?

We need milk, especially between 6-16 years old. So its a miracle that what we need is available in nature. Maybe this is the mechanism to stop them to produce milk continuously and harm themselves. So they keep producing milk as long as human take their milk. They also produce much higher amounts of milk than a baby cow's needs.

Why do sheeps produce wool continuously ? What would happen if the sheep below was not found by humans ?

Edited September 19, 2016 by Altai

[?Impact]

Why do sheeps produce wool continuously ? What would happen if the sheep below was not found by humans ?

Yup, again not a farmer.

Wild sheep shed their coats naturally. That is why they are sheared in the spring, or else the sheep farmer will lose the wool. Your picture is of a merino sheep, an abnormality created by man cross breeding.

Edited September 19, 2016 by ?Impact

[Altai]

Yup, again not a farmer.

Wild sheep shed their coats naturally. That is why they are sheared in the spring, or else the sheep farmer will lose the wool. Your picture is of a merino sheep, an abnormality created by man cross breeding.

Details are just bluring your mind not to understand creation. You need to look at wider. So sheep wool is one of the most important things in human life. Maybe we could not even survive without it in cold winter days. We need it and we have it by "chance". We have everything we need, billions of things.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Altai

[?Impact]

Maybe we could not even survive without it in cold winter days.

What about common Eider ducks?

What about seals?

What about other fur bearing animals?

Lots of cultures did not rely on sheep.

Modern culture uses petroleum derived fibres instead.

Edited September 19, 2016 by ?Impact

[BC_chick]

We need milk, especially between 6-16 years old. So its a miracle that what we need is available in nature. Maybe this is the mechanism to stop them to produce milk continuously and harm themselves. So they keep producing milk as long as human take their milk.

We don't need milk between 6-16, in fact we're the only species that consumes milk beyond infancy. But even if we really needed it, don't you think the fact that we have to rely on other species is actually an argument against intelligent design? Shouldn't humans make their own milk if it was that essential to our health?

And also, if this is all intelligent design, shouldn't we able to withstand various temperatures on our own accord instead of wearing animals and/or their fur?

It all seems a bit counter intuitive.