1. If God exist, nothing can prove that.
2. If God does not exist, nothing can prove that.
If we take that approach, any talk about it is pointless because it is impossible to prove either way.
So we should give up because we don't know? Can you imagine how far people would have never come if they gave up when they did not know?
(survival of the fittest, anyone)?
I'm more into "Death of the weakest."
Ever taken biology? Evolution is one of biology's core principles.
Evolution is a subset of biology. A very specific subset. It is far from being a core part.
Evolution is pretty hard to debate. If anything, the part to attack is the "where did life come from" question - there are some pretty solid theories, but none of them are as developed as evolution is.
Wait.
You opened that door?
How did the first cell know it had to consume another? And how was that cell created? I don't think scientists can give valid explenations on that with proper proof supplied. Yes, evolution is well detailed, but they can't give explenation on a lot of things, intelligence for example or simply instinct.
You'll have to forgive Poot, evolution does
not describe how life came into existence. Evolution is a theory on the effects of when preexisting life makes more life. Evolution requires that life already exists.
Mr. and Mrs. ...God?
That'd be interesting.
It's backed by logic rather that faith
Faith is merely logic you do not consciously understand.
How does that follow? An intelligent designer would tailor each species in such a way that it was more effective, no?
Do you presume to have omniscient knowledge of biology?
I'd say life is plenty effective, no?
You could argue the same about the universe itself.
For every piece of matter and energy in the universe at this exact moment, I ask you this: Where was it before that?
Of course, you then explain to me the exact location of everything at the previous instant of time. I then ask you where everything was before that. You answer. I ask the same for your answer. This continues for lengths of time incalculably beyond comprehension.
If you eventually say, "I already told you," that would mean time repeats, or there exists a stage in the past at which time stands still. I see no reason for a repeating time line to be the entire cosmos. If time collapses to a standstill, then what changed it was something outside of this universe. If you require time to be a measure of change, then when time reaches a point in the past of absolutely no change, your answer of, "I already told you," changes to, "Nothing." Maybe you can always give a different answer. However, time moves one way. There must always be a previous frame of time, and to stretch that to infinity in the past would make this moment of time impossible to reach, because infinite time must pass to reach the present, which is impossible since infinity is not a value you can reach.
These are merely different ways of visualizing the same concept: Our universe is not the complete set known as the cosmos.
Unless you can give an explanation of the creation of our universe that does not defy the physics that bind this universe, I am forced to conclude that our universe was created externally.
The Earth is no more the center of the solar system than our solar system is the center of galaxy. Our galaxy is not the center of the universe. Why should the universe be the center of the cosmos?
The question then becomes, "How is it that the cosmos exists?" Of course, we can never be sure that we have captured the complete set of the cosmos, so to ask this scientifically is useless. As Shados said:
If you do not accept that the universe simply is, then that property is merely shifted to whatever prime cause you name.
The universe, as we know it, in order to not break physics, must have a cause, and to know whether that cause is intelligent or not, is far beyond our abilities. To know whether this cause has another cause is beyond our abilities.
Simplest answer is usually correct, no? To take that to a cosmic level, the simplest cosmos would be one that does not exist. This is the default. This is what must be the case. There is no reason for it to be everything or anything at all.
And yet, here we are.
Why is the cosmos not nothing? I have only found a single logical answer.
This argument has been done to death and isn't particularly informative or interesting.
A cosmos beyond us?
That is certainly uninteresting.
. Black holes are just balls that are very dense and has a large amount of gravity therefore sucking shit in and compacting it. The wormhole theory is just a "what if" and most people believe if u get sucked into a black hole, u'll get crushed.
![Dreadnought[dA]](https://cdn.hiveworkshop.com/data/avatars/m/134/134647.jpg?1465504677){kind=avatar}
