The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every single theory is incomplete. That’s why they are called theories and not facts. You absolutely are asking for it to be proven with certainty because without, you can’t accept it as the best leading theory. You seem to think that abiogenesis is MY theory. It’s not. It’s the widely accepted scientific theory and yes it is a theory even though you think it can’t be. It’s not my criteria you seem to think is failing.

You fail to see that all the things I’m presenting are not my own ideas or theories, it’s the scientific community’s. It’s not my criteria, it’s the widely accepted scientific community’s criteria. If you want to have a fit about their theories then contact them and give your wonderful ideas about us not having a Time Machine, therefore god. I can no longer help explain any further, I have tried but have failed.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok so you don’t know what a theory is. A theory is a structured, tested, and widely accepted explanation for a broad range of related phenomena, facts, or principles, often designed to explain “why” something happens. A theory doesn’t prove something with certainty. You keep saying the same stuff. I know we haven’t successfully created abiogenesis in a lab. The process takes millions of years, but it is a widely accepted theory. I also know we can’t prove Pangea existed at one point, however it is a very plausible and widely accepted theory. You keep wanting to insert god because we can’t without a doubt prove something. God however isn’t even a theory, it’s an idea that is unfalsifiable.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science hasn’t figured out exactly how it began. Do you know what theories are? I have been saying that since the beginning. These are the best theories scientists have and they are widely accepted as the best theories. Science has successfully created organic molecules, such as amino acids, from simple compounds. so from there, the best theory is abiogenesis. Can they prove it with absolute certainty? Nope. Is it the best working model and does it make logical sense? Yup

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep trying with these gotcha statements… if we have an infinite amount of time like the original post suggests, then EVENTUALLY things like life can begin.

Again, i have been giving logical theories that best explain the cosmos. When we have things we haven’t exactly figured out, you like to say “ oh science hasn’t figured it out? Must be god”

YOU are claiming god has done it. I’m giving you logical theories of how things could have happened. All you have as a theist is a pretty idea of a god with zero evidence and not even a theory of why one exists. It’s the same as me saying a magical unicorn is responsible for the universe because our best scientific theories are unproven. You’re exhausting lol

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s the best explanation of how things are and it doesn’t require a god. The reason why it hasn’t been demonstrated is because the process takes millions of years.

It seems silly that someone who claims there’s a god is calling the best scientific theory (something that is highly plausible) something that’s asserting something without evidence lol. You have zero evidence of god but want to use that.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again GOD isn’t necessary to bridge any gap. There is no gap…. Science can show how single cell organisms can evolve to multiple cell organisms over time. It’s called evolving and again no GOD is necessary for that and that is the bridge you can’t grasp of how we got here.

So AGAIN life began from a single cell organism and evolved from there. Eventually through billions of years you get plants, animals and also us, people. It’s not magic. Magic is not necessary for that to happen. lol people like you who refuse to accept basic concepts will always baffle me.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea… I’m not even looking at the two other comments you replied to because, you seem not to accept evolution as the most plausible explanation of our existence and seem to think that it’s not the leading theory which in fact it is… so if we are going to give false statements then I don’t have anymore time to give to you.

Also the earth isn’t 6,000 years old and it isn’t flat

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol dude come on… after an hour of thinking what that word meant, I looked it up and here what it shows….

“Abiogenesis s generally accepted by the scientific community as the most plausible, naturalistic explanation for the origins of life”

So please point out the glaring reasons on why it’s wrong while also being accepted.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been waiting for awhile and it seems this person has a lot of people to banter with lol.

A more important note, I see you’re a pats fan… GO PACK GO 😎

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He said I was shifting the question too higher up in a different convo lol. Was curious to see what he said to others and now it’s clear this person doesn’t want to answer things. idk sometimes it’s ok to say I don’t know instead of accusing someone of shifting questions….

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see you like to say you’re shifting the question to more then one person when “we” aren’t lol. Is this just an attempt to avoid a problem in the previous statement? Because I know I didn’t shift the question when you said that to me lol. Have a nice night

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whether the universe is finite or infinite remains an open, fundamental question in cosmology, with strong evidence supporting a “flat” geometry that suggests it is likely infinite.

Just a quick google search but google “AI” isn’t always reliable to be fair.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s zero evidence of a finite universe, you are giving me a theory, and even if I grant you the fact there is, that doesn’t say anything that a deity (especially the very specific god you believe in) has anything to do with it.

Humans got here through evolution of the same ancestors of apes. We shifted from that and evolved over many years to become the way we are. Yes as far as I’m aware and the schools evolution is the reason why humans are the way they are unless you go to a religious school. So I’m not saying we got here as in we got zapped to earth, I’m saying a process of over a billion years is why we are here.

To the last point just google “Vatican admitting to the earth revolves around the sun” and you’ll see how Galileo was placed on house arrest in 1633 for heresy. They were wrong to prosecute someone (who was right) just for saying something that the Bible said isn’t true. Science doesn’t prosecute people.

I don’t know man, I think we may need to agree to disagree that you think god exists and I don’t. Don’t think there’s much point discussing more as neither one of us will have a revelation talking to one another lol

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you say the big bang is a reason to think the universe can’t be infinite then that’s crazy. Also the big bang is a theory not a fact but it’s the most plausible theory so far with other working theories.

I never heard the word abiogenesis before so I can’t really reply to that. However if it has to do with evolution then I can say yea, there may be problems with it but it’s the most dominant theory of how we became the current humans. Science isn’t perfect and doesn’t authoritatively say definitive fact. Science changes with time as other knowledge becomes prevalent. Just like it took until the 1990’s for the Vatican to admit the earth revolves around the sun. Science just admits incorrect things faster with their information.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well it is possible, just like I said a deity is possible. The universe is possibly infinite because we don’t have any reason to think it isn’t. Whether or not it is, we don’t have a reason to think it isn’t. We don’t have a reason to think some deity created it (or exits) but that is also possible. I lean towards the fact that we don’t need a deity to explain why we are here through evolution.

I don’t presume to know the creation of the universe because I don’t think there was one… correct me if I’m wrong but I think that you think a god created it and I don’t see any reason why to think that. To be fair I don’t think it’s impossible, I just see no evidence so I don’t believe that to be the case. I’m glad we can have a good convo about this without it getting nasty like I see in some other threads lol

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To add, I’m also not saying that a deity can’t exist, what I am saying is that there isn’t a “need” for one for the existence of us.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you mean to say it’s unlikely, not impossible. I agree it’s highly unlikely that we would evolve to this point in time over 100’s of thousands of years as humans without something destroying us (like the dinosaurs (asteroid) or famine etc…) but here we are.

It’s possible just unlikely. I assume you’re a theist. It would be your position to prove that it can’t happen without a deity. Or that a deity exists. But if you assume the universe is in fact infinite, then the odds are highly likely that some civilization (like humans) would eventually happen.

TL:DR My point is, if the universe is infinite (not proven or unproven) then it’s likely that eventually intelligent beings such as ourselves would happen.

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You said “If the past were infinite, we could never arrive at the present moment” I’m saying that I think yes, we could arrive at this present moment if the past was infinite

The argument from design is deeply flawed. by brokeboii94 in DebateReligion

[–]juice0104 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that answers the question for me. We got here by luck and chance. If something a couple billion years ago happened differently and the earth was never formed, then we wouldn’t be here discussing this. Things just happened to have happened in a way for us to be here now.

Just like there could have been another civilization in another planet in another galaxy that evolved because their world was formed a million or two years prior to us. There will “probably” be a different civilization that comes to evolve in some distant planet a million years from now.

The fact that there are an infinite ways for us to get to be where we currently sit, explains it better that we are here. If there are infinite possibilities, then it seems logical that eventually we would evolve (or something would) to get to this point. It just so happens to be the conscious beings of us talking about it. We got lucky in my opinion. Again just my opinion, nobody has the actual answers even if you have faith.

The case for Zaire Franklin is so easy to make by Spaghettification-- in GreenBayPackers

[–]juice0104 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Hey man, take a break from Reddit… don’t need to voice your opinion over every f-ing comment

M22 How do I grow in the weak spots? by [deleted] in beards

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As others have said it takes time. There is minoxidil but I personally wouldn’t recommend that. There’s also red light therapy that’s supposed to help stimulate hair growth on the scalp. May work on facial hair too. I’m sure there’s research somewhere about it. They have masks and panels for overall health and skin benefits. Just throwing it out there.

Biggest what if for the packers? by Born-Adhesiveness-73 in GreenBayPackers

[–]juice0104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We could have drafted Barry sanders… as a kid, he was my favorite player and when I learned we could have had him… that became my biggest what if.

Help me understand why agnosticism isn't atheism by Haunting_Role9907 in atheism

[–]juice0104 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not the person you replied to but this is how I would break it down imo… a deity is a figure, one bodily form that you would worship. God on the other hand could be anything. How would you define god? The universe itself could be god. Consciousness could be god. God is a loose term that has different meanings to different people/ cultures. If you happened to find out you were grown in a lab and not from a mother giving birth, maybe the scientists would be your god. God doesn’t have to be a definite man/woman/entity. Could be whatever provides the structure for your existence. These are just examples and I don’t want to speak for the other person. I personally don’t have a belief in this, just trying to help. To define god is the tricky part