Hindu groups linked to terror, Parliament rocked

[Guest HariSampath]

^ Kindly explain ....how energy/matter was created from the number 42 :hysterical:

[CC1981]

You dont possess even minimum intelligence for a debate' date=' so just stuff it.[/quote'] LOL, that is the silliest comment i've ever heard. THX is anything but stupid or with 'minimum debating intelligence'- infact i do not think you are qualified to comment on it - considering how dumb***** your views are on certain things.

[CC1981]

Atheism is totally idiotic.

True atheism is idiotic. But your theism is even more idiotic - hell, it is far more idiotic as your theistic creationist goobledegook is largely pure fiction and someone's total shots in the dark - propped up by a whole bunch of lies and hero-worship, as the atheists by the norm still make far less boolsheet assumptions than your type of theists.

[CC1981]

indeed... nor can science conclusively deny that there are no china teapots revolving around alpha centuri... of course, the poignant question is: "is it justified to be agnostic about a the existence of a china tea pot revolving around alpha centuri?" what you have presented is debunked by the flying spaghetti monster statement from common colloquialism.

And the flying spaghetti monster statement is debunked by adapting Kant's idea, by simply pointing out the obvious : The flying spaghetti or the teapot around alpha century is not a hypothetically possible explanation to causality. I agree that most concepts of God or creation is ultimately bunk but the most generalized concept of an exterior phenomena, outside of pure materialistic environmental determinism cannot be ruled out *until* there can be any possible explanation for the causality of phenomena. What i mean by this is this : The question 'where did big bang come from/energy/matter' etc. can be like a 'rabbit hole' scenario, where the answers can be questioned with 'well, where did that come from ?' If you say origin of matter/energy is intersection of planes or multiverse theory, i'd pose the question 'ok. where did the phenomena driving the multiverse concept originate from ?'. Ultimately, the question isnt the origin of matter or space or time or energy, it is the question of origination of phenomena - the first act/action on an universal or multiverse phenomena is the real question of origination - be it from a scientific or purely theist concept. There has to be either an independent ( thermodynamically) source to phenomena - which would make it ultimately, a theistic or agnostic reality or there has to be a closing loop to the origination question - where somehow perpetual motion or perpetual feedback due to nature of existence is proven - which would ultimately make phenomena a totally atheistic concept. But as it stands today, there simply is no reason to assign a theistic or an atheistic origination of causality - a theist can argue that 'well your multiverse is created by God' and that may or maynot be true, while you can argue 'no God, only cosmic environmental determinism due to the nature of universal interactions' and that could still may or maynot be true. What i wonder is, why is it even worthwhile to arrive at a conclusion on the origin of phenomena, considering that ultimately, it is a Gordian knot for the time being and its solution does not reality change the reality of our existence beyond its limits of perception and purpose anyways. That is my real question to the atheists and the theists because as far as i am concerned,eExistence or non-existence of God doesnt change anything at all to the limits or causality of our actions or thought.

[Holysmoke]

Thread has gone way off topic. Discussing religion (or the lack of it) is not allowed here, and you all know it. Also, refrain from commenting on fellow posters intellectual ability. Attack the post if you want, not the poster.