religious debate

[Guest]

"Before the Big Bang" is about as meaningful as "north of the North Pole

I believe I've read somewhere that before the big bang there was a universe, and this universe was expanding

but eventually it started to get smaller, until it became the extremely dense piece of matter.

Which eventually expanded again and became the universe.

And this universe will eventually shrink down to be an extremely dense piece of matter

I don't really believe that theory, but I thought I'd mention it

There are also arguments to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. That doesn't mean He does.

Yep, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is my favorite mock religion

RAmen

[unreality]

(Here's a little atheism proof, maybe, or at least something interesting to think about)

Here's a question to all theists:

Ask yourself how your god (he, she, it, them, doesnt matter) came about.

1) Has it always been there? If so, is it so hard to believe that the universe has always been there? No god needed.

2) Was it created? If so, by whom? And thus what created that? And that before it? Infinite regression, thus the answer is that something was always there.

***

On something similar but different, if you argue that life and everything in it is too complex to just have evolved that way or been here, then whatever created everything would have to be, by default, just as complex, if not more complex. Going by your definition, too complex to just be there or to have evolved that way. So how did it get there? It would have to be created as well... infinite regression.

***

For both of these, you come back to the point that something complex or at least something in general has to have always existed. No creator is needed.

Thus the only answer to this for theists is something I haven't thought of ("god created himself" doesn't work, I'm afraid) OR the theist must accept that the proof of life's complexity is no proof for a creator.

EDIT: fixed grammar (change to to too)

I definantely agree that something must have always existed. According to physics, it is impossible for the universe to have always existed, therefore, making necessary some sort of deity.

You clearly misunderstood me. I do not believe in any god (other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course, the evidence is tremendous )

You and me both agree on one thing: "that something must have always existed". Then your next sentence you contradicted yourself, saying that just that is impossible... lol. But back to us both thinking that something must have always existed:

if that is true (i dont know if it is or isnt), then the whole point is that shows that the "life is too complex for there NOT to be a god" theist arguement HAS NO MERIT... my proof that you quoted shows that that is NO proof at all. It's not necessarily an atheism proof (but it could be), but rather a fix to a proof that theists sometimes used.

I believe that the universe and time has always existed... the whole point is, that's easily possible without a god. If "god" could exist forever, assuming god is as complex or more complex than the universe, or at least more complex than nonexistance, then the universe could certainly exist forever as well. DUH! that was the whole point of what i said. If god can exist forever than the universe without a god can too.

[Guest]

I answered this already. The Big Bang theory does not propose that the universe has been expanding forever.

I am curious how the Big Bang could have started from nothing. If there was NOTHING how can anything come from it. Scientists have been able to create things out of "nothing," but don't they still need energy to create it?

You clearly misunderstood me. I do not believe in any god (other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course, the evidence is tremendous )

You and me both agree on one thing: "that something must have always existed". Then your next sentence you contradicted yourself, saying that just that is impossible... lol. But back to us both thinking that something must have always existed:

certainly exist forever as well. DUH! that was the whole point of what i said. If god can exist forever than the universe without a god can too.

I actually said that the physical universe could not have been around for ever. The flaw in my reasoning was that I kind of forgot that according to some people, the universe was created by nothing from nothing. If that is not true, then I think there must be some kind of God.

[Guest]

Almost all cosmologists don't believe in a god and even more don't think a god is necessary to explain the workings of the universe. If you think you've got some useful information to prove how the universe could not exist without a god, maybe you can contact some of them and get them to listen to you.

Just something to think about.

If you believe in a God who created this world and everybody in it including you, and is going to judge you on what you have done, that means if you do something wrong, you will be punished. That is rather a terrifying thought. If there is any questions about getting out of that and even evidence that that might not be true, wouldn't you jump for it?

[Guest]

I am curious how the Big Bang could have started from nothing. If there was NOTHING how can anything come from it. Scientists have been able to create things out of "nothing," but don't they still need energy to create it?

If your curious about these things, I told you I would recommend some websites and books if you like. But not understanding how the universe got here and not being able to fathom some pretty deep stuff is not evidence for any gods, which is what you claimed you provided. A frog can't comprehend how water falls from the sky but that doesn't mean a Rain God must exist.

I actually said that the physical universe could not have been around for ever. The flaw in my reasoning was that I kind of forgot that according to some people, the universe was created by nothing from nothing. If that is not true, then I think there must be some kind of God.

You are free to think whatever you like. But your belief that there must be a god is based on a misunderstanding what cosmologists say about the origin of the universe. What do you think your god is made of that could have been around forever? It's kind of funny that some theists can't imagine matter always being there, the universe always being there or something coming from nothing, but you don't seem to have a problem with a very complex, omniscient, omnipotent god always existing. Isn't a magical god that can do anything and always was even more difficult to fathom?

Just something to think about.

If you believe in a God who created this world and everybody in it including you, and is going to judge you on what you have done, that means if you do something wrong, you will be punished. That is rather a terrifying thought.

I don't believe in it. Isn't this obvious by now? What if a god does exist? Why should I believe he would punish me for wrongs I've committed and give you a break for your wrongs just because you believe he exists? Isn't that a little silly?

If there is any questions about getting out of that and even evidence that that might not be true, wouldn't you jump for it?

I don't understand what you're asking.

[Guest]

If your curious about these things, I told you I would recommend some websites and books if you like. But not understanding how the universe got here and not being able to fathom some pretty deep stuff is not evidence for any gods, which is what you claimed you provided. A frog can't comprehend how water falls from the sky but that doesn't mean a Rain God must exist.

I never said that my curiosity proves anything. Although curiosity dose seem like a pretty complex and useless thing to evolve. I would like a good website that gives solid evidence and examples of how something was created from nothing by nothing.

You are free to think whatever you like. But your belief that there must be a god is based on a misunderstanding what cosmologists say about the origin of the universe. What do you think your god is made of that could have been around forever? It's kind of funny that some theists can't imagine matter always being there, the universe always being there or something coming from nothing, but you don't seem to have a problem with a very complex, omniscient, omnipotent god always existing. Isn't a magical god that can do anything and always was even more difficult to fathom?

To me it is much easier to believe in a God who has always been then to believe in this world that I live on and look at and try to study either always being or being created from nothing by nothing. I don't know what God is made of but he doesn't have to have a body or any kind of matter about him, which means that it would be much more understandable that he would have existed forever. It seems much more logical to me that God made this than to think that out of nothing, with absolutely staggering odds against it, (even if it is possible that it happened) this universe just happened and a purposeless world with purposeless but somehow thinking, feeling beings just were. I have often thought that it is pretty illogical that feelings evolved since it doesn't seem to me like they really help us survive. Not to mention how they evolved since, as far as I know, there is no relationship found between the emotions and any part of the brain.

Also, how do you explain seemingly supernatural events. One example is the Welsh Revival.

[unreality]

To me it is much easier to believe in a God who has always been then to believe in this world that I live on and look at and try to study either always being or being created from nothing by nothing.

Once again you are MISSING MY POINT that I gave with my proof on page 8 or 9. I will spell it out simply in simple terms so that you can understand this time:

TWO TRUTHS WE BOTH AGREE ON:

* you believe that the universe is too complex to exist forever or to be created from nothing, therefore god created it!

* obviously god itself would be more complex than the universe it created

THEREFORE:

* where did god come from? If god is more complex than his universe, it would MORE likely that the UNIVERSE came out of nowhere or has existed forever than some MAGICAL OMNIPOTENT MASTER ORGANISM existing forever or coming out of nowhere

***

thats my point. The fact that anything is too complex or too outlandish so there must be a god is entirely false- the point of this is to show that in fact it is even MORE outlandish if you factor a "god" into the equation

[Guest]

thats my point. The fact that anything is too complex or too outlandish so there must be a god is entirely false- the point of this is to show that in fact it is even MORE outlandish if you factor a "god" into the equation

What I am saying is that God is not physical. Since he is not physical, he can always exist, be infinite, be infinitely complex, He is more amazing because he is not physical then this world is because it is physical.

[unreality]

That doesn't prove anything. In fact that strengthens my point... he is more complex than the world. So ask yourself how 'God' got to be there?

Has he always been there?

- or -

Was he created by something else?

- or -

He came about to exist some other way?

** In any of those three ways, that could have happened to the universe too. What are you saying is no proof that God exists. In fact it's digging yourself deeper into a hole. Do you have any proof that God exists or are we going to endlessly debate things that we both see differently. Either way, a universe or God could have existed forever. Neither of us are proving anything with that- except that I'm proving that you CANT prove something. See what I mean?

So do you have a reason that we should believe in God just cuz he isn't physical?

[Guest]

Although curiosity dose seem like a pretty complex and useless thing to evolve.

Yes, how useless it is to be curious if it will hurt an animal if you hit him with a rock, if a pointy rock will hurt more if sharpened to be even pointier, what meat would taste like if held over a fire, if wearing an animal skin would feel warmer. I'm sure early man would have done just fine without curiosity given its uselessness. Are these the sort of thoughts you have that cause you to believe attributes such as curiosity must have been given to us by a god?

Now maybe you can explain what reason your god had for creating us with a tail bone and giving snakes and whales useless vestigial hipbones buried in their bodies.

I would like a good website that gives solid evidence and examples of how something was created from nothing by nothing.

And without that you believe god must exist? I want you to give me solid evidence that I'm not a brain in a jar and all my experiences including your existence aren't imaginary.

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

To me it is much easier to believe in a God who has always been then to believe in this world that I live on and look at and try to study either always being or being created from nothing by nothing. I don't know what God is made of but he doesn't have to have a body or any kind of matter about him, which means that it would be much more understandable that he would have existed forever.

unreality did a fine job of showing why this is an illogical reason to believe in a magical god who is made of nothing, yet somehow creates something, which you already stated doesn't make sense. If God is made of nothing, how can something come from Him? Don't tell me- you don't have to explain it because God works in mysterious ways, right? Yet if I don't have the answer you're looking for, the simplest answer is that a magical god made of nothing exists? If that sort of logic suits you, you're welcome to it. If we all gave up searching for answers to how things work by attributing miracles to them, we'd still be in the dark ages. It may be more comforting thinking you know how things came into existence and you certainly don't have to bother learning what real experts in the field say by having your simplistic answer- God did it- but I'd rather be part of the group that struggles to find real answers.

Not to mention how they evolved since, as far as I know, there is no relationship found between the emotions and any part of the brain.

You don't seem to have much of an understanding of human evolution, so that isn't surprising. That's not a put down, I'm just calling it like I see it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB430.html

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.html

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/FesslerEmotionEncycl.pdf

Also, how do you explain seemingly supernatural events.

You've got to be kidding? All seemingly supernatural events must necessarily be supernatural events? And if any of them are, a god must exist? C'mon, you can do better than that.

[Guest]

Yeah, the brains emotions greately affect the rest of you

That's why we might blush if someone we like shares eye contact with us in class

and why we might feel a bit sick, just before a big test we never studied for

and all of the things that Martini said, about the necessity of curiosity in evolution.

All of those ways that man made discoveries very greately affected our physical evolution

with cooked meat that had more protein, they began to stand taller over the years

wearing furs made hair less necessary, so we began to become more hairless

I prefer tall and hairless to short and hairy

so thank you, all of you curious early homo sapiens

you make me feel less subconcious about my body

although beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[Guest]

If there was NOTHING how can anything come from it. Scientists have been able to create things out of "nothing," but don't they still need energy to create it?

Why don't you do a little research instead of being content with your supposition that things couldn't work as they do without God?

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mar...tic/vacuum.html

But as has been mentioned, explaining to you how this or that happens isn't necessary. The point is that proposing a god exists does not in any way explain how stuff can pop into existence or how "stuff" could have always existed. On the contrary, it gives us more things to explain such as how an extremely complex god made of nothing could have always existed.

He is more amazing because he is not physical then this world is because it is physical.

Exactly. More amazing means His existence is less likely to be true. Why on Earth would you accept the more amazing solution rather than the simpler one?

Occam's razor

From a poster on one of Martini's links:

If something cannot come from nothing, then it cannot come from nothing even if God waves his magic wand to do so. But then why is there a god and not no god? If god exists then she he or it is a "something" and thus very much a part of the very same question of the ultimate origin of existence.

If they say that god is eternally uncreated then why can't any of the other somethings be eternally uncreated?

All of this of course leaves aside the question of how this god could have created a universe or life in any case. What did this being do exactly? This is especially perplexing given the tendency of the theist to define god as "immaterial" rather than material; a being of "spirit" rather than of matter and energy. How an immaterial being could even interact with a material universe, to say nothing of creating one from complete nothingness, is entirely incomprehensible to me.

I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, and neither do theists. When asked any of the questions posed above, "I don't know" is also a popular answer among theists. They would have done better to have admitted that at the outset, and not bent their brains in knots only to fall back in a heap at the same spot.

[Guest]

Why on Earth would you accept the more amazing solution rather than the simpler one?

umm. I have to be objective here, and say

well, maybe it's because we don't actually know what the simpler solution is yet.

perhaps, if, or when, we find out how something came out of nothing, and how the universe was created, then the atheists will have much more leverage here

but because there's nothing that has all the answers that replaces the theory of any kind of god, there being any kind of god comes from process of elimination

but logic just tells me otherwise

[Guest]

umm. I have to be objective here, and say

well, maybe it's because we don't actually know what the simpler solution is yet.

Yes, we do. Proposing that 'something' always existed is simpler than proposing that 'something' can't always exist- unless that something is an infinitely smart, infinitely powerful, complex being who cares about humanity and created and sustains the universe, but is neither caused nor uncaused, having no beginning, and no 'intelligent design' underlying its magnificent order and power. You know, whichever one you think requires the least suspension of disbelief.

perhaps, if, or when, we find out how something came out of nothing, and how the universe was created, then the atheists will have much more leverage here

Oh, really? I propose that this universe was created by a superior alien race as an experiment. If you don't agree, perhaps when you have all the answers of how everything happened, you will have more leverage disputing my claim.

Atheism does have more leverage here. We don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. We don't need any more leverage than that to show that believing in magical beings with no evidence is illogical.

but because there's nothing that has all the answers that replaces the theory of any kind of god, there being any kind of god comes from process of elimination

but logic just tells me otherwise

That makes absolutely zero sense. You say all other possibilities have been eliminated, yet "logic" tells you otherwise?

[Guest]

Yes, we do. Proposing that 'something' always existed is simpler than proposing that 'something' can't always exist- unless that something is an infinitely smart, infinitely powerful, complex being who cares about humanity and created and sustains the universe, but is neither caused nor uncaused, having no beginning, and no 'intelligent design' underlying its magnificent order and power. You know, whichever one you think requires the least suspension of disbelief.

But I thought that scientists know that the universe hasn't always been there

when I was talking about a simpler solution, I was thinking of a way of the universe coming about. And we still don't know how that happened

Obviously the creation theory is way more out there, at least in my view, but no other theories have been proven, and the creation theory might be popular because it requires no proof, only faith

Atheism does have more leverage here. We don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. We don't need any more leverage than that to show that believing in magical beings with no evidence is illogical.

I agree

and that is logical evidence

but a Christian can always say "well, the bible says ____"

so it can't be used very well in an argument

to many Christians I know, the bible is the evidence

That makes absolutely zero sense. You say all other possibilities have been eliminated, yet "logic" tells you otherwise?

well, what I meant to say was that we don't have a bulletproof way that the universe came about

if we did, then there would be no more controversy as to how it came into existence, we would all already know.

and the "logic tells me otherwise" part was in reference to belief in a god.

I just can't logically believe that the "infinitely smart, infinitely powerful, complex being who cares about humanity and created and sustains the universe, but is neither caused nor uncaused, having no beginning, and no 'intelligent design' underlying its magnificent order and power" can be true

[Guest]

But I thought that scientists know that the universe hasn't always been there

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if this universe is only 14 billion years old and came from 'stuff' that was already there, is part of a multiverse, or that stuff can pop into existence in a vacuum, which scientists have also already proven. All of them are simpler explanations than an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful god existing, which would be orders of magnitude more difficult to explain.

when I was talking about a simpler solution, I was thinking of a way of the universe coming about.

And that's what I replied to. A complex god always existing is not simpler than simpler materials always existing or popping into existence.

And we still don't know how that happened

And we still have no reason to propose a god is necessary to fill in the blanks for us.

Obviously the creation theory is way more out there

Then you're retracting this statement?: "maybe it's because we don't actually know what the simpler solution is yet."

I agree

and that is logical evidence

but a Christian can always say "well, the bible says ____"

so it can't be used very well in an argument

to many Christians I know, the bible is the evidence

Where are you going with this? You're now saying that logical evidence can't be used in an argument with a Christian because he will claim the Bible says otherwise?

well, what I meant to say was that we don't have a bulletproof way that the universe came about

So? So all theories that aren't bulletproof get eliminated through process of elimination, but the god theory doesn't, even though that's not bulletproof?

if we did, then there would be no more controversy as to how it came into existence, we would all already know.

That's false. There's no such thing as bulletproof evidence. The evidence gathered from multiple branches of science that the universe and Earth are older than 10,000 years is as bulletproof as can be. That's not enough to stop ignorant creationists from claiming that scientific evidence is inaccurate. It's also not enough to stop Christians that know better from claiming that the stories that they cherry pick are just allegories. Do you think that creationists would buy "bulletproof" evidence of how the universe came about, or would they simply deny the evidence (or not even bother to understand it in the first place)? And what about the more intelligent Christians that don't buy into the "creationism happened 10,000 years ago" nonsense? Would they stop believing in their god, or would they believe that there's still an invisible god behind the scenes that somehow got the ball rolling in motion and that Jesus is still the Savior?

[Guest]

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if this universe is only 14 billion years old and came from 'stuff' that was already there, is part of a multiverse, or that stuff can pop into existence in a vacuum, which scientists have also already proven.

oh, okay,

see, I didn't know this stuff before

All of them are simpler explanations than an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful god existing, which would be orders of magnitude more difficult to explain.

I agree

And we still have no reason to propose a god is necessary to fill in the blanks for us.

Well, primitive reasons for religion were to explain natural causes like volcanos and earthquakes, as someone said, like, 7 pages back.

Some people find proposing that a god interferes with the earth and its people to make these things happen necessary

I would rather find the real reason to why things happen, and so would most people, and thus, science

Then you're retracting this statement?: "maybe it's because we don't actually know what the simpler solution is yet."

huh?

Both statements are saying pretty much the same thing, that we don't know a simpler solution to the theory of creation.

So? So all theories that aren't bulletproof get eliminated through process of elimination, but the god theory doesn't, even though that's not bulletproof?

the annoying thing is that the god theory doesn't need to be bulletproof,

it's based on faith, arguing with it is useless.

Where are you going with this? You're now saying that logical evidence can't be used in an argument with a Christian because he will claim the Bible says otherwise?

sort of,

many Christians still believe that the earth is only 10,000 or so (I don't really know how old) years old.

But carbon dating has proven that to be untrue many times before

unless, of course, it's just that Flying Spagheti Monster, there changing the data with his noodely appendage

That's false. There's no such thing as bulletproof evidence. The evidence gathered from multiple branches of science that the universe and Earth are older than 10,000 years is as bulletproof as can be. That's not enough to stop ignorant creationists from claiming that scientific evidence is inaccurate. It's also not enough to stop Christians that know better from claiming that the stories that they cherry pick are just allegories. Do you think that creationists would buy "bulletproof" evidence of how the universe came about, or would they simply deny the evidence (or not even bother to understand it in the first place)? And what about the more intelligent Christians that don't buy into the "creationism happened 10,000 years ago" nonsense? Would they stop believing in their god, or would they believe that there's still an invisible god behind the scenes that somehow got the ball rolling in motion and that Jesus is still the Savior?

I'm not gonna bother arguing here, because you made a really good point

[Guest]

Then you're retracting this statement?: "maybe it's because we don't actually know what the simpler solution is yet."

huh?

Both statements are saying pretty much the same thing, that we don't know a simpler solution to the theory of creation.

Yes, we do know simpler solutions, and you already admitted to it:

All of them are simpler explanations than an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful god existing, which would be orders of magnitude more difficult to explain.

I agree

[Guest]

but are there simpler solutions that we know are true?

which is kind of what I was asking

[Guest]

but are there simpler solutions that we know are true?

which is kind of what I was asking

You already know we don't know for a fact how the first particles got here, so why would you be asking that?

I said: "Why on Earth would you accept the more amazing solution rather than the simpler one?"

You replied: "umm. I have to be objective here, and say

well, maybe it's because we don't actually know what the simpler solution is yet."

You weren't asking if we have "simpler solutions that we know are true".

You were in no way being objective towards bociniki's claim that it is more unbelievable that "stuff' could be here without a god than with one. With a god, we would have an even more complex problem to solve. Not only does stuff have to pop into existence or always exist, but an infinitely complex god also has to exist.

We don't have to "know" what the simpler solution is to deduce that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god is a more complex scenario than any that have been proposed by scientists.

[Guest]

well, I was saying something and thinking something else

my mistake was in my wording

my bad

We don't have to "know" what the simpler solution is to deduce that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god is a more complex scenario than any that have been proposed by scientists.

I already told you, I agree

Edited January 28, 2008 by Ploper

[unreality]

About the religion coming from natural phenomena, mostly natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, that was me

Even the most stout Christian could tell you today that earthquakes happen when tectonic plates run into each other, and that lightning is static electricity jumping around from positive to negative or vice versa. But before they knew that, they had no answer for it... instead of figuring out the answer, they would say "Oh, God makes lightning strike sinners." Even though they now know that to be false.

In the early early days, they had no way of explaining volcanoes- so the only explanation is the divine: "That's the Fire God inside that mountain, getting pissed off and spouting flame from the volcano."

"Oh no, a flood- our god must be punishing us for our sins!"

etc

But now we know the truth. I think as science discovers new truths, religion quickly adapts. You dont see them sweating over how they used to think that lightning's purpose was to kill sinners. But eventually, as we discover new stuff, how much phenomena is left unexplained for religion to cover? Religion's food is dwindling.

On another note, this is a question to all theists:

How would you respond if I said "God made me atheist"? Why do you suppose god would make us atheists? Why would he punish us that way and take away His Divine Faith from us? If you think our purpose is so you can increase your own faith by knowing there are atheists or whatever, doesnt that go against God's benevolence by using us before we supposedly had a choice, if he indeed makes peole atheists, they dont have a choice. Think about that. The thing is, there is free will. That's what it boils down. So I hope your religion includes an openness that free will exists.

Another thing, but very related: Why would be sent to an ETERNAL punishment in Hell if you didnt have a choice? Or eternal heavenliness in heaven? If god makes us the way we are, why would some of us be 'punished' and others 'rewarded'?

[Guest]

On another note, this is a question to all theists:

How would you respond if I said "God made me atheist"? Why do you suppose god would make us atheists? Why would he punish us that way and take away His Divine Faith from us? If you think our purpose is so you can increase your own faith by knowing there are atheists or whatever, doesnt that go against God's benevolence by using us before we supposedly had a choice, if he indeed makes peole atheists, they dont have a choice. Think about that. The thing is, there is free will. That's what it boils down. So I hope your religion includes an openness that free will exists.

Another thing, but very related: Why would be sent to an ETERNAL punishment in Hell if you didnt have a choice? Or eternal heavenliness in heaven? If god makes us the way we are, why would some of us be 'punished' and others 'rewarded'?

This is all a subject for another thread. I don't think it's worth starting a thread over though, as I haven't met a religious person yet that doesn't believe in free will. I on the other hand think there's sufficient evidence to show that free will is an illusion. That's also a subject for another thread.

[Guest]

About the religion coming from natural phenomena, mostly natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, that was me

I thought so, I just didn't want to say it in case I was wrong

[unreality]

I believe in randomness and free will. But that's another topic (which I wouldnt join). But yeah, I think this debate is pretty much over