I have one.
Cool! Have fun chatting away!
Let things work themselves out. Really, these situations have a knack for solving themselves in due time.
Not much. Watched some TV and now I'm playing some music. How about you?
Neither. Because they both suck to the degree of deserving to be gang raped by porcupines.
Because evidence proves something, while arguments support something. Therefore, you mixed them up. We don't know yet. Which I already mentioned by the way. But thanks for contributing to the point anyway. Why should he be? How can a being of such complexity have existed in the very beginning? Scientists have given plausible theories for the increase in complexity, from quarks over atoms to enormous molecules. However, there have been no arguments whatsoever, let alone valid reasons, for a decrease in complexity. Yeah, I know; God wanted to create us in his won image, right? 1) Who says that the concept of God isn't a metaphor itself? 2) Thanks to terrestrian fossils among other indicators science has given us a pretty good idea of how the world looked like even when it was still called Pangaea. Good point. However, there is no scientific indicator of a flood of such proportions that isn't refuted already. If I thought that I wouldn't be calling him a wizard in the first place, now would I? No, because of mathematics and physics. No matter how powerful God is or what his reason could have been, there is no creating something from nothing. That includes water for a flood.
You're banned from the internet. Get the hint.
Again: who or what made God? Your point has been questioned umpteen times in this topic.
I think you're confusing evidence with arguments because saying that there is evidence to prove he exists while denying that his existence can be proven contradicts itself. So instead of a wizard who made it go poof it's a wizard who makes small components that make it go poof. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...Why would he even bother with a detour if he could make it go poof? But before you'll mention it: yes, the Big Bang theory does have flaws as well. As it is incapable of explaining the Big Bang's origin. I never said that there wasn't a flood. There may very well have been one. But I do believe that there wasn't a flood like the one the Bible depicted, let alone the wole "ark" scene. Are most Christians well ware of the probability of a forty-days-and-forty-nights long rain across the globe too? After all, you are not idiots. Yeah yeah yeah, I know, it could happen. But please excuse me for choosing the most probable option.
Who or what created that Something or Someone? And who or what created the creator of that Something or Someone? I don't believe that something can be created from nothing. I believe that has always been something. And personally, I think a fusion of several still unknown components is a tad more probable than a wizard who made it all go poof. Actually, whether there is but one or plenty, gods are spiritual beings with no souls, humanly bonds or body. So were the Greek ones (although according to mythology they could take on human form). Monkeys didn't "create" us, we gradually evolved from other primeapes through various minor adaptations. Beneficial (or at least non-malevolent) alterations in phenotype (appearance, function, you know what I mean) caused by mutations in DNA itself or in chromosomes that are passed on through several generations. Secondly, who says that there even was a flood, let alone one that wiped out nearly all of mankind? Long story short, the Bible is "slightly less false" than Greek mythology and some parts aren't disproven yet. God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. However, several of his proclaimed feats have already been attacked by arguments based on scientific facts rather than bogus and groping in the dark, so you'll have to excuse me for choosing the former. Saying that "God could still have created the flood" is true, but if one dares to ask how he did it, it would leave most if not all believers dumbfounded. While a meteorological study could determine the cause or at least narrow it down to a more understandable and less obscure explanation than "God did it".
You have a point there. But I still don't like Coldplay. I know a couple of songs by them and they're pretty much the same really. It never killed to do something refreshing with your music every once in a while. I think they're boring and added them in my list of worst bands because of their overrated-ness.
Nothing much, somewhat busy actually. How are you doing?
Why should we tell you? Just keep on feeling whatever you feel and don't let us influence you. You'd just end up with fake emotions anyway.
Yeah. And everything that's popular has to be good, doesn't it? :D But then how oh how would you explain our mutual aversion for the Jonas Brothers?
I don't have any mortal enemies who still breathe.
It does, but when a guy cries just as much as her the living room just turns into a river of salty tears and that doesn't really help her. Of course it's alright for her to cry, it will make her feel better. And it will also make her feel better if she knows that she has someone she can count on, someone who cares without turning into an emotional wreck to show it.
It makes you vulnerable. Which is a close friend of weakness. If you cry for someone it shows that you care but that doesn't really help anyone, does it? People in a vulnerable state need a solid beacon of hope, trust and help, not someone who is just as big a mess as they are. ;)
Mine was more epic than all Olympic Games, World Cups, intercontinental wars and Lord Of The Rings movies put together.
Whoa. Calm down, dude.
I'll let you have a guess on how much I care on a scale from -10 to 0.
