OT Breaking: Life Found on Venus

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

My point is this planet was not created by coincidence. I believe in a Creator just like I know someone coded this website for it to function and to have us chat.

So who created the ''creator''?

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

There you go, another christian trying to avoid the infinite regression that logically follows with his “creator” assertion (a completely baseless assertion, by the way, since no religion anywhere has ever been able to provide even a shred of scientific evidence that their god(s) even exist). Also, you are making another basic scientific error by displaying your ignorance of the difference between the common usage of the term “nothing” and the various scientific definitions of it when you pretend that science thinks that the universe was “created” out of nothing, which is not what it actually says (do some research on the big bang theory before you try to include it in your argument). Also, if you really think it is a silly idea that the universe was created out of nothing then you must immediately reject the ridiculous story of your god literally speaking the universe into existence from NOTHING using a magic incantation. This story is no more believable than Harry Potter making things appear using a magic incantation. It is, in fact, considerably more believable because Harry is a human and we know humans exist, not so for your god. The big bang theory is also extremely different from your biblical creation myth because it suggests the mechanisms that combined to bring about that moment of singularity, but your “god said let there be light” idea contains absolutely zero explanative power and is therefore reduced to the status of “magic”, for which there is also absolutely zero evidence that it exists. Sorry, but you cannot solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
Yes, the idea of a divine entity is easily accepted, by superstitious, scientifically illiterate bronze age goat herders who hadn’t yet figured out indoor plumbing. But to modern day people living in the information age it is all too obvious that those stories are scientifically wrong in just about every single way they can be and represent the hard limit of scientific knowledge of the time. It is interesting and very revealing that your “all powerful, all knowing” creator of the universe can’t produce a single piece of scientific information in his bible that wasn’t known by the people of the time, and he still makes all the same scientific errors that the people of the time did too.
Like I said before, if you want to try to use science in your arguments you really need to make sure it is accurate science, which you will absolutely never find on christian apologist web sites. This is the information age, at this point ignorance is a choice. Make a good one.

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

So who created the ''creator''?

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

You can believe in a Creator and believe in science. In fact science actually supports the concept of a Creator. But that's digressing the topic.

NOPE ! Sorry, I will not let you make such an absurd claim and just walk away, not when all the actual scientific evidence points in the exact opposite direction. If you want to argue that any aspect of science supports the concept of a creator you are going to have to present your evidence and make your case. How about starting with any evidence you have that proves the existence of your god ? oops, can’t do that, millions before you from every religion every invented have tried and failed. OK, how about proof that anything supernatural (like miracles) has ever actually occurred ? Oops, can’t do that either since science has never encountered any event or phenomena that is supernatural. Ok, maybe I’m not giving you a chance to speak for yourself, so what’s your evidence ?

[UcanUwill]

Science disproves that though. The universe is full of laws and rules that are certain. A world full of randomness and chance would result in situations like spontaneous combustion. People would be walking around and turning to flaming because that fits the notion of randomness. But science has demonstrated the world has order, it has structure, it has lifecycles, it has evolution. We don't see animals devolving for example - why is that? Why aren't we going back to an amoeba?

science disproves what exactly, I dont really understand your point? From what I know, most science laws came to be in the first moments of big bang, in different universes, some science laws like speed of light might differ. And of course there are scientific laws, because it suppose to be for existence to exist, but thats not the reason why we deevolve, animals do not deevolve because it makes no sense, this is not about scietific law of any kind, its about the passage of time, everything tries to adapt over time or it dies out.

We do exist in 4D, there is X axis, Y axis, Z axis and then there is time, time is the 4th. dimension, we are 3 dimensional beings constantly moving in 4 dimensional world, but as 3 dimensional beings, we cant perceive time dimension, time is constantly twisting and turning, but we cant see that, jus like 2dimesional being wouldnt be able to see Z axis.

Yes I agree science laws always existed. That is my point. It didn't evolve or change they were here from the moment of the big bang. In a world of supposed randomness why would science laws themselves not be random? In terms of scientific laws that's my point again. Law or rules or patterns need to be designed and fixed. What and who designed and fixed them? In terms of what it would be like in different universes having differing speed of light that would be irrelevant. Whomever designed that universe would have created rules and laws that are fixed for that universe. The whole point is to go against this theory of randomness creating who we are.

In terms of animals not devolving that is not true. If randomness existed that a series of randomness put us together then equally a series of randomness will logically pull us apart. It's random right. But logically we have an evolution structure, the body develops a system that works and makes redundant things that don't. Like our tail for example. Also if things are random why don't we see parallel tracks of single development. Single cells still exist, why don't we see them in our many years of human existing evolving. It requires some faith to believe that a single cell organism magically became multi-cellular does it not? Then why not believe that there was a higher plan in order or at the very least respect people who have that belief.

I put time into 3D. We witness and experience time but 4D is different. As you said we can't truly perceive or manipulate time dimensions and yes time is constantly twisting and turning, like around the event horizon of a black hole. Two years ago two different research groups completed very different test that concluded 4D must exist but they don't know what that is. We can't comprehend it and we lack the ability to see it. Like we know the wind is there and we know it plays a factor but we can't see it.

My point is that the universe is unlikely just randomness. The fact we even have dimensions suggest planning and thought. Science itself supports that structure, plan or design but we're too early to fully understand. And if there is structure and design then there is most likely a designer or Creator and it takes just as much faith to believe we're a mixture of random chance that only happened once among the billions of years and trillions of stars and planets of the universe existence than it does to believe there might be a method to this madness that is beyond our scope.

I think you making same thinking error I already talked about, word for word what I already said, you assume science laws are not random, well they might not be random, but they are not fixed or planned. I clearly said that evolved intelligent life will look at his world and will think that its planned or fixed, it is just so difficult for such being image existence being any different because everyone existed like that from the beginning of time. But its a false thinking laws could have been formed differently in any other random fashion, entire existence and universe would be completely different, but knowing how big and old any universe would be, life will find a way, and that life would think its random laws were fixed, and couldnt imagine it being any other way.

There were billions of billions single cell organisms, I dont know the percentage, but I imagine majority of it would not evolve ever, because evolution is fluke prospect, but if very few same type single cell organisms became 2 cell organisms, doesnt mean every organism of that species (if you even can call it that way) will automatically evolve as well. The majority of organisms will never evolve, because they developed to be in perfect environment for it already, makes sense. So it takes one organism out of billions to mutate, and sometimes that organism will bring and off spring and here you have it, now you have single cell organisms and 2 cell organisms, and thats how it all starts, and more complex organism becomes, the more prone to evolution it will be, because it will be able to explore different environments that needs adaptation and it will also be prone to impact its environment. Rat that lived 300 million years ago, evolved into primates, because it explored woods, it dug caves, it was jumping from one branch to another. Just a mutation and rat with a taller tail or limbs will find to be more adequate, in will reach taller branches, will find food easier and boom it will survive easier, its spring with inherited tail, will survive easier, it will reach the top of the trees, it will be exposed to the sun, boom, another different enviroment that over time will demand an adaptation. So its completely understandable that we have humans, we have elephants at the same time we still have single cell organism. Single cell organism never were exposed to different environments, it never made change to its environment, its irrelevant and stagnated. Its completely understandable it stagnate, it never needed to cahnge, organisms that by random changes left its environment had to change, so that is the reason why some organisms never change, while others changed a LOT.

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

Science disproves that though. The universe is full of laws and rules that are certain. A world full of randomness and chance would result in situations like spontaneous combustion. People would be walking around and turning to flaming because that fits the notion of randomness. But science has demonstrated the world has order, it has structure, it has lifecycles, it has evolution. We don't see animals devolving for example - why is that? Why aren't we going back to an amoeba?

science disproves what exactly, I dont really understand your point? From what I know, most science laws came to be in the first moments of big bang, in different universes, some science laws like speed of light might differ. And of course there are scientific laws, because it suppose to be for existence to exist, but thats not the reason why we deevolve, animals do not deevolve because it makes no sense, this is not about scietific law of any kind, its about the passage of time, everything tries to adapt over time or it dies out.

We do exist in 4D, there is X axis, Y axis, Z axis and then there is time, time is the 4th. dimension, we are 3 dimensional beings constantly moving in 4 dimensional world, but as 3 dimensional beings, we cant perceive time dimension, time is constantly twisting and turning, but we cant see that, jus like 2dimesional being wouldnt be able to see Z axis.

Yes I agree science laws always existed. That is my point. It didn't evolve or change they were here from the moment of the big bang. In a world of supposed randomness why would science laws themselves not be random? In terms of scientific laws that's my point again. Law or rules or patterns need to be designed and fixed. What and who designed and fixed them? In terms of what it would be like in different universes having differing speed of light that would be irrelevant. Whomever designed that universe would have created rules and laws that are fixed for that universe. The whole point is to go against this theory of randomness creating who we are.

In terms of animals not devolving that is not true. If randomness existed that a series of randomness put us together then equally a series of randomness will logically pull us apart. It's random right. But logically we have an evolution structure, the body develops a system that works and makes redundant things that don't. Like our tail for example. Also if things are random why don't we see parallel tracks of single development. Single cells still exist, why don't we see them in our many years of human existing evolving. It requires some faith to believe that a single cell organism magically became multi-cellular does it not? Then why not believe that there was a higher plan in order or at the very least respect people who have that belief.

I put time into 3D. We witness and experience time but 4D is different. As you said we can't truly perceive or manipulate time dimensions and yes time is constantly twisting and turning, like around the event horizon of a black hole. Two years ago two different research groups completed very different test that concluded 4D must exist but they don't know what that is. We can't comprehend it and we lack the ability to see it. Like we know the wind is there and we know it plays a factor but we can't see it.

My point is that the universe is unlikely just randomness. The fact we even have dimensions suggest planning and thought. Science itself supports that structure, plan or design but we're too early to fully understand. And if there is structure and design then there is most likely a designer or Creator and it takes just as much faith to believe we're a mixture of random chance that only happened once among the billions of years and trillions of stars and planets of the universe existence than it does to believe there might be a method to this madness that is beyond our scope.

WOW ! Just waaaaaay too much scientific nonsense in here to even start to comment on, although you really should just admit you made a mistake, that “cover my ass” nonsense about “I put time into 3D” just shows that you do not even understand what the three dimensions actually are. Then you go on to use an equivocation of the word “faith” to make it seem as if both religion and science use faith, which is not only wrong but is just intellectually dishonest.
This is an interesting discussion and all of you certainly have mixed in some good points with some errors, but if you guys want to use science to help make your arguments, you really need to do some more basic research before posting. We all make mistakes, and nobody is 100% up on every aspect of science, not even scientists, but there are some really basic errors here that should not have been included.

[Badonkadonk]

My point is this planet was not created by coincidence. I believe in a Creator just like I know someone coded this website for it to function and to have us chat.

So who created the ''creator''?

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

Whatever gives you comfort.

[Raps in 4]

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

You can believe in a Creator and believe in science. In fact science actually supports the concept of a Creator. But that's digressing the topic.

NOPE ! Sorry, I will not let you make such an absurd claim and just walk away, not when all the actual scientific evidence points in the exact opposite direction. If you want to argue that any aspect of science supports the concept of a creator you are going to have to present your evidence and make your case. How about starting with any evidence you have that proves the existence of your god ? oops, can’t do that, millions before you from every religion every invented have tried and failed. OK, how about proof that anything supernatural (like miracles) has ever actually occurred ? Oops, can’t do that either since science has never encountered any event or phenomena that is supernatural. Ok, maybe I’m not giving you a chance to speak for yourself, so what’s your evidence ?

One could argue that physics itself is a miracle. That our unlikely existence is a miracle. And so on.

Our extremely limited understanding of science doesn't prove or disprove a higher power. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A higher power doesn't necessarily need to be "magical" either. A higher power can operate within yet undefined laws of science. It can be a law of science.

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

science disproves what exactly, I dont really understand your point? From what I know, most science laws came to be in the first moments of big bang, in different universes, some science laws like speed of light might differ. And of course there are scientific laws, because it suppose to be for existence to exist, but thats not the reason why we deevolve, animals do not deevolve because it makes no sense, this is not about scietific law of any kind, its about the passage of time, everything tries to adapt over time or it dies out.

We do exist in 4D, there is X axis, Y axis, Z axis and then there is time, time is the 4th. dimension, we are 3 dimensional beings constantly moving in 4 dimensional world, but as 3 dimensional beings, we cant perceive time dimension, time is constantly twisting and turning, but we cant see that, jus like 2dimesional being wouldnt be able to see Z axis.

Yes I agree science laws always existed. That is my point. It didn't evolve or change they were here from the moment of the big bang. In a world of supposed randomness why would science laws themselves not be random? In terms of scientific laws that's my point again. Law or rules or patterns need to be designed and fixed. What and who designed and fixed them? In terms of what it would be like in different universes having differing speed of light that would be irrelevant. Whomever designed that universe would have created rules and laws that are fixed for that universe. The whole point is to go against this theory of randomness creating who we are.

In terms of animals not devolving that is not true. If randomness existed that a series of randomness put us together then equally a series of randomness will logically pull us apart. It's random right. But logically we have an evolution structure, the body develops a system that works and makes redundant things that don't. Like our tail for example. Also if things are random why don't we see parallel tracks of single development. Single cells still exist, why don't we see them in our many years of human existing evolving. It requires some faith to believe that a single cell organism magically became multi-cellular does it not? Then why not believe that there was a higher plan in order or at the very least respect people who have that belief.

I put time into 3D. We witness and experience time but 4D is different. As you said we can't truly perceive or manipulate time dimensions and yes time is constantly twisting and turning, like around the event horizon of a black hole. Two years ago two different research groups completed very different test that concluded 4D must exist but they don't know what that is. We can't comprehend it and we lack the ability to see it. Like we know the wind is there and we know it plays a factor but we can't see it.

My point is that the universe is unlikely just randomness. The fact we even have dimensions suggest planning and thought. Science itself supports that structure, plan or design but we're too early to fully understand. And if there is structure and design then there is most likely a designer or Creator and it takes just as much faith to believe we're a mixture of random chance that only happened once among the billions of years and trillions of stars and planets of the universe existence than it does to believe there might be a method to this madness that is beyond our scope.

I think you making same thinking error I already talked about, word for word what I already said, you assume science laws are not random, well they might not be random, but they are not fixed or planned. I clearly said that evolved intelligent life will look at his world and will think that its planned or fixed, it is just so difficult for such being image existence being any different because everyone existed like that from the beginning of time. But its a false thinking laws could have been formed differently in any other random fashion, entire existence and universe would be completely different, but knowing how big and old any universe would be, life will find a way, and that life would think its random laws were fixed, and couldnt imagine it being any other way.

There were billions of billions single cell organisms, I dont know the percentage, but I imagine majority of it would not evolve ever, because evolution is fluke prospect, but if very few same type single cell organisms became 2 cell organisms, doesnt mean every organism of that species (if you even can call it that way) will automatically evolve as well. The majority of organisms will never evolve, because they developed to be in perfect environment for it already, makes sense. So it takes one organism out of billions to mutate, and sometimes that organism will bring and off spring and here you have it, now you have single cell organisms and 2 cell organisms, and thats how it all starts, and more complex organism becomes, the more prone to evolution it will be, because it will be able to explore different environments that needs adaptation and it will also be prone to impact its environment. Rat that lived 300 million years ago, evolved into primates, because it explored woods, it dug caves, it was jumping from one branch to another. Just a mutation and rat with a taller tail or limbs will find to be more adequate, in will reach taller branches, will find food easier and boom it will survive easier, its spring with inherited tail, will survive easier, it will reach the top of the trees, it will be exposed to the sun, boom, another different enviroment that over time will demand an adaptation. So its completely understandable that we have humans, we have elephants at the same time we still have single cell organism. Single cell organism never were exposed to different environments, it never made change to its environment, its irrelevant and stagnated. Its completely understandable it stagnate, it never needed to cahnge, organisms that by random changes left its environment had to change, so that is the reason why some organisms never change, while others changed a LOT.

Hey look ! An explanation that actually uses real science ! This discussion is getting more interesting by the minute !

[shefcurry]

So who created the ''creator''?

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

People do not believe that really, its just that our knowledge and perception, comprehension is limited. This is people problem, we are smartest life on earth, so people just assume our comprehension is limitless and that we must comprehend everything and should know all the answers. Just like hamster will never understand math, we might never understand origins of existence even if possible answers being right in front us.

Creator theory is so human, and I dont put faith on it at all, it is just so simple, it obviously born in human mind, human who thinks that if he has no scientific answer, than there is none, human who wants to have answers to everyhting.

Obviously I do not respect creator theory, and I maybe dont even need to engage anymore, but our limited science answered already that our world shaped by random chances. Intelligent life evolving is such a long shot, that any intelligent being, evolved due billions upon billions of random chances over millions of years every time adapting to its environment, said intelligent being will never imagine it happening any other way, from his point of view, his environment and evolution will always seem perfect, like its set up. Our comprehension has limit, but we can comprehend that, we can understand the wrong of our shortsighed thinking. We are those intelligent beings who perceive that our world is ''perfect'', like its set up, but its not, its an outcome of billions upon billion of chances.

The problem is infinitely recursive, even for atheists. To claim the universe is the result of random chance implies a pre-existing *potential* for something to happen. i.e. a failure to properly grasp the true nature of what we mean when we say "nothing". Nothing means no potential. No chance. No randomness. The fact that the universe exists at all only has two possibilities: 1 - a creator, or 2 - the universe has always existed. Both possibilities are reducible to what we generally mean when we say God.

But, if you really want to see if there is a creator, then you can do an experiment. Decide that you no longer want to follow gravity, and simply levitate. Can't do it? What's stopping you? If the answer is "the laws of physics", that's not an answer because a law is an abstract synthesis of an observation made by humans, not an objective thing. Yet, you objectively can't levitate. So, what's stopping you?

[Matty]

So who created the ''creator''?

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

There you go, another christian trying to avoid the infinite regression that logically follows with his “creator” assertion (a completely baseless assertion, by the way, since no religion anywhere has ever been able to provide even a shred of scientific evidence that their god(s) even exist). Also, you are making another basic scientific error by displaying your ignorance of the difference between the common usage of the term “nothing” and the various scientific definitions of it when you pretend that science thinks that the universe was “created” out of nothing, which is not what it actually says (do some research on the big bang theory before you try to include it in your argument). Also, if you really think it is a silly idea that the universe was created out of nothing then you must immediately reject the ridiculous story of your god literally speaking the universe into existence from NOTHING using a magic incantation. This story is no more believable than Harry Potter making things appear using a magic incantation. It is, in fact, considerably more believable because Harry is a human and we know humans exist, not so for your god. The big bang theory is also extremely different from your biblical creation myth because it suggests the mechanisms that combined to bring about that moment of singularity, but your “god said let there be light” idea contains absolutely zero explanative power and is therefore reduced to the status of “magic”, for which there is also absolutely zero evidence that it exists. Sorry, but you cannot solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
Yes, the idea of a divine entity is easily accepted, by superstitious, scientifically illiterate bronze age goat herders who hadn’t yet figured out indoor plumbing. But to modern day people living in the information age it is all too obvious that those stories are scientifically wrong in just about every single way they can be and represent the hard limit of scientific knowledge of the time. It is interesting and very revealing that your “all powerful, all knowing” creator of the universe can’t produce a single piece of scientific information in his bible that wasn’t known by the people of the time, and he still makes all the same scientific errors that the people of the time did too.
Like I said before, if you want to try to use science in your arguments you really need to make sure it is accurate science, which you will absolutely never find on christian apologist web sites. This is the information age, at this point ignorance is a choice. Make a good one.

Well Christians believe a human being was a God so count me out of that. Humans didn't create the universe.

If I told you everything mankind created came out of thin air you would call me crazy.

Not sure why it's hard to believe an entity beyond our capacity to witness created the human mind which is more sophisticated than anything known to humans. At the end of the day no one witnessed the big bang, yet people believe in it wholeheartedly based off nothing more than theories.

[SFour]

I’d say we are probably the only intelligent beings in our galaxy. Outside of that though, could be anything out there

If we're the only intelligent beings, then the whole galaxy is f*****. The fact that we're spending billions in dollars, and who knows how much time, effort, and resources trying to find life on other planet instead of using it to take care of life on this planet shows how intelligent we are.

But to stay on topic, I'd probably guess that there is intelligent life out there and it found us first. The whole UFO's and little green men thing. Some say they are fabrications of government to cover-up military experiments. But what if they are fabrications of a higher form of intelligent being to make us believe that something is out there when in fact something else is out there.

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

You can believe in a Creator and believe in science. In fact science actually supports the concept of a Creator. But that's digressing the topic.

NOPE ! Sorry, I will not let you make such an absurd claim and just walk away, not when all the actual scientific evidence points in the exact opposite direction. If you want to argue that any aspect of science supports the concept of a creator you are going to have to present your evidence and make your case. How about starting with any evidence you have that proves the existence of your god ? oops, can’t do that, millions before you from every religion every invented have tried and failed. OK, how about proof that anything supernatural (like miracles) has ever actually occurred ? Oops, can’t do that either since science has never encountered any event or phenomena that is supernatural. Ok, maybe I’m not giving you a chance to speak for yourself, so what’s your evidence ?

One could argue that physics itself is a miracle. That our unlikely existence is a miracle. And so on.

Our extremely limited understanding of science doesn't prove or disprove a higher power. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A higher power doesn't necessarily need to be "magical" either. A higher power can operate within yet undefined laws of science. It can be a law of science.

And yet, we as thinking beings inhabiting a material reality, have no choice but to operate within the laws of physics and the natural world that are presented to us. Your assertion that science doesn’t disprove a higher power shows your lack of understanding of the fact that even though something can not be proven to be impossible does not mean that it is possible. You also seem confused about the “burden of proof” involved with any positive assertion. If you want to claim your god is real it is not on anyone else to prove your claim wrong, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. So prove your god exists or I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim that your god is responsible for the creation of the universe, just the same way I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claims that fairies, unicorns, leprechauns or flying spagetti monsters created the universe. I do not want to put words into your mouth, but if you are a christian pease consider that I am dismissing your christian god claims out of hand, for the exact same reasons that you dismiss the god claims of Allah, Vishnu, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, and every other god claim that has ever been made, out of hand. Also, I do not consider the existence of the laws of physics to be a miracle. If you want anyone else to take that claim seriously then you are going to have to define your understanding and precise meaning of the word “miracle”, and then make a case for why physics meets that definition. It seems clear to my understanding of the word miracle that physics is far removed from meeting those criteria, but if you feel like making a case for it I would be interested to hear your reasons.

[Raps in 4]

NOPE ! Sorry, I will not let you make such an absurd claim and just walk away, not when all the actual scientific evidence points in the exact opposite direction. If you want to argue that any aspect of science supports the concept of a creator you are going to have to present your evidence and make your case. How about starting with any evidence you have that proves the existence of your god ? oops, can’t do that, millions before you from every religion every invented have tried and failed. OK, how about proof that anything supernatural (like miracles) has ever actually occurred ? Oops, can’t do that either since science has never encountered any event or phenomena that is supernatural. Ok, maybe I’m not giving you a chance to speak for yourself, so what’s your evidence ?

One could argue that physics itself is a miracle. That our unlikely existence is a miracle. And so on.

Our extremely limited understanding of science doesn't prove or disprove a higher power. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A higher power doesn't necessarily need to be "magical" either. A higher power can operate within yet undefined laws of science. It can be a law of science.

And yet, we as thinking beings inhabiting a material reality, have no choice but to operate within the laws of physics and the natural world that are presented to us. Your assertion that science doesn’t disprove a higher power shows your lack of understanding of the fact that even though something can not be proven to be impossible does not mean that it is possible. You also seem confused about the “burden of proof” involved with any positive assertion. If you want to claim your god is real it is not on anyone else to prove your claim wrong, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. So prove your god exists or I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim that your god is responsible for the creation of the universe, just the same way I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claims that fairies, unicorns, leprechauns or flying spagetti monsters created the universe. I do not want to put words into your mouth, but if you are a christian pease consider that I am dismissing your christian god claims out of hand, for the exact same reasons that you dismiss the god claims of Allah, Vishnu, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, and every other god claim that has ever been made, out of hand. Also, I do not consider the existence of the laws of physics to be a miracle. If you want anyone else to take that claim seriously then you are going to have to define your understanding and precise meaning of the word “miracle”, and then make a case for why physics meets that definition. It seems clear to my understanding of the word miracle that physics is far removed from meeting those criteria, but if you feel like making a case for it I would be interested to hear your reasons.

I'm not religious. Nor do I want to convince you of the existence of a god. You are the one trying to convince me of the contrary.

To me, a higher power is perfectly compatible with science. In fact, a higher power is science. Science is miraculous in that it allows us, as conscious beings, to exist in this moment.

[tdotrep2]

change the title we havent yet, and religious people relax who cares. This would be exciting news idc about a creator.

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

The Creator is one and infinite. If people can believe this universe was created out of nothingness, the idea of a divine entity should be easily accepted.

There you go, another christian trying to avoid the infinite regression that logically follows with his “creator” assertion (a completely baseless assertion, by the way, since no religion anywhere has ever been able to provide even a shred of scientific evidence that their god(s) even exist). Also, you are making another basic scientific error by displaying your ignorance of the difference between the common usage of the term “nothing” and the various scientific definitions of it when you pretend that science thinks that the universe was “created” out of nothing, which is not what it actually says (do some research on the big bang theory before you try to include it in your argument). Also, if you really think it is a silly idea that the universe was created out of nothing then you must immediately reject the ridiculous story of your god literally speaking the universe into existence from NOTHING using a magic incantation. This story is no more believable than Harry Potter making things appear using a magic incantation. It is, in fact, considerably more believable because Harry is a human and we know humans exist, not so for your god. The big bang theory is also extremely different from your biblical creation myth because it suggests the mechanisms that combined to bring about that moment of singularity, but your “god said let there be light” idea contains absolutely zero explanative power and is therefore reduced to the status of “magic”, for which there is also absolutely zero evidence that it exists. Sorry, but you cannot solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
Yes, the idea of a divine entity is easily accepted, by superstitious, scientifically illiterate bronze age goat herders who hadn’t yet figured out indoor plumbing. But to modern day people living in the information age it is all too obvious that those stories are scientifically wrong in just about every single way they can be and represent the hard limit of scientific knowledge of the time. It is interesting and very revealing that your “all powerful, all knowing” creator of the universe can’t produce a single piece of scientific information in his bible that wasn’t known by the people of the time, and he still makes all the same scientific errors that the people of the time did too.
Like I said before, if you want to try to use science in your arguments you really need to make sure it is accurate science, which you will absolutely never find on christian apologist web sites. This is the information age, at this point ignorance is a choice. Make a good one.

Well Christians believe a human being was a God so count me out of that. Humans didn't create the universe.

If I told you everything mankind created came out of thin air you would call me crazy.

Not sure why it's hard to believe an entity beyond our capacity to witness created the human mind which is more sophisticated than anything known to humans. At the end of the day no one witnessed the big bang, yet people believe in it wholeheartedly based off nothing more than theories.

Hi Matty, there is a huge, and very important, difference between belief and knowledge. People can believe anything they want. Some people still “believe” that the Earth is flat. But they are stupid and wrong for too many reasons to even begin to list here. I am not interested in what is possible for me to believe, I am interested in believing things that are actually, demonstrably true. It is possible for me to imagine that a being was the creator of the universe, but since there is absolutely no evidence to support this idea I choose not to believe it. The time to believe something is AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true. The god claims of many societies, involving many different gods, have never risen to the level of being provably demonstrated, so there is literally no good reason to believe in any of them. Many people do believe in them all around the world for reasons of indoctrination, wishful and hopeful thinking, lack of critical examination of those claims, among many other bad reasons for belief. I need good reasons to believe something, and without any good reasons I am making the only rational choice available to withhold my belief until any one of those many claims can be shown to be true, That is the only reasonable and defensible position an intelligent person can take. You also seem confused by the very big difference between believing in a god despite not being there to personally witness and verify it’s reality and believing in the big bang theory without being there to personally witness it’s reality. The difference is that there are exactly zero lines of scientific evidence to Support the reality of any god claim, yet there are multiple lines of scientific evidence to support the reality of the big bang theory, such as red shifted light that we can directly observe, and a measurably expanding universe that can be regressed back to a single point at some time in the past, which we have measured to be about 14 billion years ago (13.8 to be more precise). So, yes, there are very good, and scientifically valid reasons to believe that the big bang theory is correct, and yet there are no scientifically valid reasons to believe in either the existence of any god at all, or of the claim that any one of these gods is responsible for the creation of the universe. These two beliefs are not equal in any way, and believing in one is justified while believing in the other is not.

[GREATPURPLESHARK]

One could argue that physics itself is a miracle. That our unlikely existence is a miracle. And so on.

Our extremely limited understanding of science doesn't prove or disprove a higher power. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A higher power doesn't necessarily need to be "magical" either. A higher power can operate within yet undefined laws of science. It can be a law of science.

And yet, we as thinking beings inhabiting a material reality, have no choice but to operate within the laws of physics and the natural world that are presented to us. Your assertion that science doesn’t disprove a higher power shows your lack of understanding of the fact that even though something can not be proven to be impossible does not mean that it is possible. You also seem confused about the “burden of proof” involved with any positive assertion. If you want to claim your god is real it is not on anyone else to prove your claim wrong, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. So prove your god exists or I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim that your god is responsible for the creation of the universe, just the same way I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claims that fairies, unicorns, leprechauns or flying spagetti monsters created the universe. I do not want to put words into your mouth, but if you are a christian pease consider that I am dismissing your christian god claims out of hand, for the exact same reasons that you dismiss the god claims of Allah, Vishnu, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, and every other god claim that has ever been made, out of hand. Also, I do not consider the existence of the laws of physics to be a miracle. If you want anyone else to take that claim seriously then you are going to have to define your understanding and precise meaning of the word “miracle”, and then make a case for why physics meets that definition. It seems clear to my understanding of the word miracle that physics is far removed from meeting those criteria, but if you feel like making a case for it I would be interested to hear your reasons.

I'm not religious. Nor do I want to convince you of the existence of a god. You are the one trying to convince me of the contrary.

To me, a higher power is perfectly compatible with science. In fact, a higher power is science. Science is miraculous in that it allows us, as conscious beings, to exist in this moment.

OK, first of all I am not trying to convince you that there is no higher power, I am simply giving you the reasons why I am personally not convinced by any god claims. If, by extension, my reasons convince you or anyone else, that is fine, but my intention here is only to respond to the obviously unscientific thinking going on in some of these posts and to correct some of the obviously incorrect scientific “facts” that some are using to try to make their points.

Secondly, science is absolutely not compatible with a higher power since any higher power of the kind you seem to be advocating for would be, by definition, supernatural. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural since science is the study of the natural world and has, literally, never encountered anything supernatural.

Third, your statement that a higher power literally “is science” is a nonsensical statement. If you are trying to say that some higher power created the rules of physics and set them in motion then I will not argue that point beyond the obvious contention that before that claim can be taken seriously you must first provide some scientific evidence that your claimed god actually exists, because if you can’t do that (and you can’t) then there is literally no reason to take your claim any more seriously than that of a child who says his invisible friend ate the cookies.

Fourth, science is not “miraculous”, (unless you are using some bizarre, alternative usage of that word). Science is a process of discovery of the natural world around us and is rooted in logic and scientific methodological naturalism, not “miracles”. Your statement that science, “allows us as conscious beings to exist in this moment” is also a nonsensical statement, since humans have existed on this planet for vastly longer than science has, which has, in it’s current form, existed only a few hundred years. Humans literally existed in all the “moments” of their lives long before they ever discovered anything we could reasonably label as “science”.

[Matty]

There you go, another christian trying to avoid the infinite regression that logically follows with his “creator” assertion (a completely baseless assertion, by the way, since no religion anywhere has ever been able to provide even a shred of scientific evidence that their god(s) even exist). Also, you are making another basic scientific error by displaying your ignorance of the difference between the common usage of the term “nothing” and the various scientific definitions of it when you pretend that science thinks that the universe was “created” out of nothing, which is not what it actually says (do some research on the big bang theory before you try to include it in your argument). Also, if you really think it is a silly idea that the universe was created out of nothing then you must immediately reject the ridiculous story of your god literally speaking the universe into existence from NOTHING using a magic incantation. This story is no more believable than Harry Potter making things appear using a magic incantation. It is, in fact, considerably more believable because Harry is a human and we know humans exist, not so for your god. The big bang theory is also extremely different from your biblical creation myth because it suggests the mechanisms that combined to bring about that moment of singularity, but your “god said let there be light” idea contains absolutely zero explanative power and is therefore reduced to the status of “magic”, for which there is also absolutely zero evidence that it exists. Sorry, but you cannot solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
Yes, the idea of a divine entity is easily accepted, by superstitious, scientifically illiterate bronze age goat herders who hadn’t yet figured out indoor plumbing. But to modern day people living in the information age it is all too obvious that those stories are scientifically wrong in just about every single way they can be and represent the hard limit of scientific knowledge of the time. It is interesting and very revealing that your “all powerful, all knowing” creator of the universe can’t produce a single piece of scientific information in his bible that wasn’t known by the people of the time, and he still makes all the same scientific errors that the people of the time did too.
Like I said before, if you want to try to use science in your arguments you really need to make sure it is accurate science, which you will absolutely never find on christian apologist web sites. This is the information age, at this point ignorance is a choice. Make a good one.

Well Christians believe a human being was a God so count me out of that. Humans didn't create the universe.

If I told you everything mankind created came out of thin air you would call me crazy.

Not sure why it's hard to believe an entity beyond our capacity to witness created the human mind which is more sophisticated than anything known to humans. At the end of the day no one witnessed the big bang, yet people believe in it wholeheartedly based off nothing more than theories.

Hi Matty, there is a huge, and very important, difference between belief and knowledge. People can believe anything they want. Some people still “believe” that the Earth is flat. But they are stupid and wrong for too many reasons to even begin to list here. I am not interested in what is possible for me to believe, I am interested in believing things that are actually, demonstrably true. It is possible for me to imagine that a being was the creator of the universe, but since there is absolutely no evidence to support this idea I choose not to believe it. The time to believe something is AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true. The god claims of many societies, involving many different gods, have never risen to the level of being provably demonstrated, so there is literally no good reason to believe in any of them. Many people do believe in them all around the world for reasons of indoctrination, wishful and hopeful thinking, lack of critical examination of those claims, among many other bad reasons for belief. I need good reasons to believe something, and without any good reasons I am making the only rational choice available to withhold my belief until any one of those many claims can be shown to be true, That is the only reasonable and defensible position an intelligent person can take. You also seem confused by the very big difference between believing in a god despite not being there to personally witness and verify it’s reality and believing in the big bang theory without being there to personally witness it’s reality. The difference is that there are exactly zero lines of scientific evidence to Support the reality of any god claim, yet there are multiple lines of scientific evidence to support the reality of the big bang theory, such as red shifted light that we can directly observe, and a measurably expanding universe that can be regressed back to a single point at some time in the past, which we have measured to be about 14 billion years ago (13.8 to be more precise). So, yes, there are very good, and scientifically valid reasons to believe that the big bang theory is correct, and yet there are no scientifically valid reasons to believe in either the existence of any god at all, or of the claim that any one of these gods is responsible for the creation of the universe. These two beliefs are not equal in any way, and believing in one is justified while believing in the other is not.

They don't call the big bang a theory for nothing. And I don't need to tell you about the countless of scientific reports that have been debunked over the years. Your idea of a "Scientific evidence" of something doesn't make it a fact unless we can actually observe it to be the case.

You just said the big bang can be demonstrated to be true, so do one for us. Show me that something - living or non-living - can come out of thin air.

[PD28]

Y'all scientists need to leave the religious people alone lol. They don't hurt anyone believing in whatever they've been taught...so long as they don't force it on others.

Man I love these kinds of findings. The odds of us being the only ones out there are next to impossible. I really hope one day we get more definitive proof.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using RealGM mobile app

[Dalek]

And yet, we as thinking beings inhabiting a material reality, have no choice but to operate within the laws of physics and the natural world that are presented to us. Your assertion that science doesn’t disprove a higher power shows your lack of understanding of the fact that even though something can not be proven to be impossible does not mean that it is possible. You also seem confused about the “burden of proof” involved with any positive assertion. If you want to claim your god is real it is not on anyone else to prove your claim wrong, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. So prove your god exists or I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim that your god is responsible for the creation of the universe, just the same way I am being perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claims that fairies, unicorns, leprechauns or flying spagetti monsters created the universe. I do not want to put words into your mouth, but if you are a christian pease consider that I am dismissing your christian god claims out of hand, for the exact same reasons that you dismiss the god claims of Allah, Vishnu, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, and every other god claim that has ever been made, out of hand. Also, I do not consider the existence of the laws of physics to be a miracle. If you want anyone else to take that claim seriously then you are going to have to define your understanding and precise meaning of the word “miracle”, and then make a case for why physics meets that definition. It seems clear to my understanding of the word miracle that physics is far removed from meeting those criteria, but if you feel like making a case for it I would be interested to hear your reasons.

I'm not religious. Nor do I want to convince you of the existence of a god. You are the one trying to convince me of the contrary.

To me, a higher power is perfectly compatible with science. In fact, a higher power is science. Science is miraculous in that it allows us, as conscious beings, to exist in this moment.

OK, first of all I am not trying to convince you that there is no higher power, I am simply giving you the reasons why I am personally not convinced by any god claims. If, by extension, my reasons convince you or anyone else, that is fine, but my intention here is only to respond to the obviously unscientific thinking going on in some of these posts and to correct some of the obviously incorrect scientific “facts” that some are using to try to make their points.

Secondly, science is absolutely not compatible with a higher power since any higher power of the kind you seem to be advocating for would be, by definition, supernatural. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural since science is the study of the natural world and has, literally, never encountered anything supernatural.

Third, your statement that a higher power literally “is science” is a nonsensical statement. If you are trying to say that some higher power created the rules of physics and set them in motion then I will not argue that point beyond the obvious contention that before that claim can be taken seriously you must first provide some scientific evidence that your claimed god actually exists, because if you can’t do that (and you can’t) then there is literally no reason to take your claim any more seriously than that of a child who says his invisible friend ate the cookies.

Fourth, science is not “miraculous”, (unless you are using some bizarre, alternative usage of that word). Science is a process of discovery of the natural world around us and is rooted in logic and scientific methodological naturalism, not “miracles”. Your statement that science, “allows us as conscious beings to exist in this moment” is also a nonsensical statement, since humans have existed on this planet for vastly longer than science has, which has, in it’s current form, existed only a few hundred years. Humans literally existed in all the “moments” of their lives long before they ever discovered anything we could reasonably label as “science”.

It is an interesting discussion with our own beliefs influencing our viewpoint either way. I guess what you are saying is that which is observable is provable and really that 'provable' is something that we as humans can detect either through our observation using our senses, or through machines and math calculations to derive the most likely result. To me, we are always limited by the tools around us and our own self-interest.

I think the ongoing study of dark matter and the few advances beyond Einstein's theories show the limitations of science. It will never get to the big picture answers because we will never have the collective will to study these big questions. Instead, we will use the majority of our intellect to study how to get people to click on links, trade inflated stocks on launching rockets to the moon, and purchase goods and services we don't need. I know it sounds like a false dichotomy, but just look at the wealthiest people, companies and they are not focused on anything but the market economy.

So my thought is that if we are so divided, we will never have the resources to truly study the creation of the universe or the existence of a creator. Science will stay deadlocked in its advances and will only be driven by economic interests. You are always going to be on winning side of the argument because there is no modern reason to study origins of life on the scale that is needed.

It doesn't mean that that which is not easily observed doesn't exist or can't exist. The model just hasn't been developed. Like all science we have to evolve and radicalize our test methods to make new discoveries. However, without money and political will we just won't see that type of study happen. If you look at time before the 20th century, humanity focused more on the metaphysical and it came through art, science and humanities. I think there was something more profound and beautiful in that pursuit.

[Kevin Willis]

science disproves what exactly, I dont really understand your point? From what I know, most science laws came to be in the first moments of big bang, in different universes, some science laws like speed of light might differ. And of course there are scientific laws, because it suppose to be for existence to exist, but thats not the reason why we deevolve, animals do not deevolve because it makes no sense, this is not about scietific law of any kind, its about the passage of time, everything tries to adapt over time or it dies out.

We do exist in 4D, there is X axis, Y axis, Z axis and then there is time, time is the 4th. dimension, we are 3 dimensional beings constantly moving in 4 dimensional world, but as 3 dimensional beings, we cant perceive time dimension, time is constantly twisting and turning, but we cant see that, jus like 2dimesional being wouldnt be able to see Z axis.

Yes I agree science laws always existed. That is my point. It didn't evolve or change they were here from the moment of the big bang. In a world of supposed randomness why would science laws themselves not be random? In terms of scientific laws that's my point again. Law or rules or patterns need to be designed and fixed. What and who designed and fixed them? In terms of what it would be like in different universes having differing speed of light that would be irrelevant. Whomever designed that universe would have created rules and laws that are fixed for that universe. The whole point is to go against this theory of randomness creating who we are.

In terms of animals not devolving that is not true. If randomness existed that a series of randomness put us together then equally a series of randomness will logically pull us apart. It's random right. But logically we have an evolution structure, the body develops a system that works and makes redundant things that don't. Like our tail for example. Also if things are random why don't we see parallel tracks of single development. Single cells still exist, why don't we see them in our many years of human existing evolving. It requires some faith to believe that a single cell organism magically became multi-cellular does it not? Then why not believe that there was a higher plan in order or at the very least respect people who have that belief.

I put time into 3D. We witness and experience time but 4D is different. As you said we can't truly perceive or manipulate time dimensions and yes time is constantly twisting and turning, like around the event horizon of a black hole. Two years ago two different research groups completed very different test that concluded 4D must exist but they don't know what that is. We can't comprehend it and we lack the ability to see it. Like we know the wind is there and we know it plays a factor but we can't see it.

My point is that the universe is unlikely just randomness. The fact we even have dimensions suggest planning and thought. Science itself supports that structure, plan or design but we're too early to fully understand. And if there is structure and design then there is most likely a designer or Creator and it takes just as much faith to believe we're a mixture of random chance that only happened once among the billions of years and trillions of stars and planets of the universe existence than it does to believe there might be a method to this madness that is beyond our scope.

I think you making same thinking error I already talked about, word for word what I already said, you assume science laws are not random, well they might not be random, but they are not fixed or planned. I clearly said that evolved intelligent life will look at his world and will think that its planned or fixed, it is just so difficult for such being image existence being any different because everyone existed like that from the beginning of time. But its a false thinking laws could have been formed differently in any other random fashion, entire existence and universe would be completely different, but knowing how big and old any universe would be, life will find a way, and that life would think its random laws were fixed, and couldnt imagine it being any other way.

There were billions of billions single cell organisms, I dont know the percentage, but I imagine majority of it would not evolve ever, because evolution is fluke prospect, but if very few same type single cell organisms became 2 cell organisms, doesnt mean every organism of that species (if you even can call it that way) will automatically evolve as well. The majority of organisms will never evolve, because they developed to be in perfect environment for it already, makes sense. So it takes one organism out of billions to mutate, and sometimes that organism will bring and off spring and here you have it, now you have single cell organisms and 2 cell organisms, and thats how it all starts, and more complex organism becomes, the more prone to evolution it will be, because it will be able to explore different environments that needs adaptation and it will also be prone to impact its environment. Rat that lived 300 million years ago, evolved into primates, because it explored woods, it dug caves, it was jumping from one branch to another. Just a mutation and rat with a taller tail or limbs will find to be more adequate, in will reach taller branches, will find food easier and boom it will survive easier, its spring with inherited tail, will survive easier, it will reach the top of the trees, it will be exposed to the sun, boom, another different enviroment that over time will demand an adaptation. So its completely understandable that we have humans, we have elephants at the same time we still have single cell organism. Single cell organism never were exposed to different environments, it never made change to its environment, its irrelevant and stagnated. Its completely understandable it stagnate, it never needed to cahnge, organisms that by random changes left its environment had to change, so that is the reason why some organisms never change, while others changed a LOT.

No I understand what you're trying to say. Science laws need to be fixed or they're random. Now for planned we can talk about that. Evolved intelligent life will not always think the world is planned or fixed because you are an evolved intelligent life and you think it's random. Evolved intelligent life will be curious and open. And laws and rules are fixed and you keep using the word random. In another universe a different set of rules can be planned and designed but that doesn't mean random. And those rules will be fixed for that universe. Until we see rules in a parallel universe we would not know for sure so we shouldn't talk about what we know but a universe without fixed scientific laws would be hellish.

For evolution let's go back to the beginning of our solar system. When planets were being formed there was not much diffference in the rocky worlds. There were all formed in the same way. Mars, Earth and Venus all had water at some point. Even Mercury. However why is Earth the only planet that formed complex life randomly and sustainably. Many factors right we can agree on that. But if what we can verify what we found in Venus, microbials can exist anywhere in many different situation. In other words there is no one sequence of events to create life. We as a species have not been able to make a single cell become complex - why not? Like I don't need an explanation about what evolution is, I assume everyone knows that but going back earlier why was life kick started here to become multi-cellular. If there is life in Venus atmosphere then there was once life on it's surface that went up into the atmosphere like on Earth and stayed there but does that mean there were other organisms on the planet surface before runaway greenhouse took affect and died. Was the planet full of extremophiles that lived on Venus or is the Earth full of extremophiles and there are other microrganisms all over the galaxy.

TL/DR - there is so much we don't know that randomness feels like a cheap way out. Scientists look for patterns, rules and laws because they are able to identify the universe is full of them. This is why we are able to space travel because of man's desire to learn and make sense of things. We 'hypothesize' that we it's random just like we 'hypothesize' a single cell went to a multi-cell because we don't know. Evolution is not efficient, sometimes it's non-sensical. Some changes even run contrary to environmental impetus. Some very efficient species have died out while others have not. If you want to make the argument that the fate of life is random I agree - mostly. Why are we here and not Neanderthals or Dravidians? However if you want to argue life itself is random I think that is a cop out to try and explain what we don't know.

[Kevin Willis]

science disproves what exactly, I dont really understand your point? From what I know, most science laws came to be in the first moments of big bang, in different universes, some science laws like speed of light might differ. And of course there are scientific laws, because it suppose to be for existence to exist, but thats not the reason why we deevolve, animals do not deevolve because it makes no sense, this is not about scietific law of any kind, its about the passage of time, everything tries to adapt over time or it dies out.

We do exist in 4D, there is X axis, Y axis, Z axis and then there is time, time is the 4th. dimension, we are 3 dimensional beings constantly moving in 4 dimensional world, but as 3 dimensional beings, we cant perceive time dimension, time is constantly twisting and turning, but we cant see that, jus like 2dimesional being wouldnt be able to see Z axis.

Yes I agree science laws always existed. That is my point. It didn't evolve or change they were here from the moment of the big bang. In a world of supposed randomness why would science laws themselves not be random? In terms of scientific laws that's my point again. Law or rules or patterns need to be designed and fixed. What and who designed and fixed them? In terms of what it would be like in different universes having differing speed of light that would be irrelevant. Whomever designed that universe would have created rules and laws that are fixed for that universe. The whole point is to go against this theory of randomness creating who we are.

In terms of animals not devolving that is not true. If randomness existed that a series of randomness put us together then equally a series of randomness will logically pull us apart. It's random right. But logically we have an evolution structure, the body develops a system that works and makes redundant things that don't. Like our tail for example. Also if things are random why don't we see parallel tracks of single development. Single cells still exist, why don't we see them in our many years of human existing evolving. It requires some faith to believe that a single cell organism magically became multi-cellular does it not? Then why not believe that there was a higher plan in order or at the very least respect people who have that belief.

I put time into 3D. We witness and experience time but 4D is different. As you said we can't truly perceive or manipulate time dimensions and yes time is constantly twisting and turning, like around the event horizon of a black hole. Two years ago two different research groups completed very different test that concluded 4D must exist but they don't know what that is. We can't comprehend it and we lack the ability to see it. Like we know the wind is there and we know it plays a factor but we can't see it.

My point is that the universe is unlikely just randomness. The fact we even have dimensions suggest planning and thought. Science itself supports that structure, plan or design but we're too early to fully understand. And if there is structure and design then there is most likely a designer or Creator and it takes just as much faith to believe we're a mixture of random chance that only happened once among the billions of years and trillions of stars and planets of the universe existence than it does to believe there might be a method to this madness that is beyond our scope.

WOW ! Just waaaaaay too much scientific nonsense in here to even start to comment on, although you really should just admit you made a mistake, that “cover my ass” nonsense about “I put time into 3D” just shows that you do not even understand what the three dimensions actually are. Then you go on to use an equivocation of the word “faith” to make it seem as if both religion and science use faith, which is not only wrong but is just intellectually dishonest.
This is an interesting discussion and all of you certainly have mixed in some good points with some errors, but if you guys want to use science to help make your arguments, you really need to do some more basic research before posting. We all make mistakes, and nobody is 100% up on every aspect of science, not even scientists, but there are some really basic errors here that should not have been included.

Why are you even attacking me - I haven't responded to your post to deserve that. No need to make it personal.

Carl Sagan does a good job of explainin dimensions and most of what I stated is from that. In terms of 4D you can read this article which explains what I meant better than I did.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/studies-find-evidence-of-a-fourth-dimension/

This is what I was trying to convey when discussing time from the article. They explain my wind reference better than I did too.

"Our world exists in three spatial dimensions (as well as the dimension of time, but that’s not something you can see). What these newest studies are looking for is the effects of a fourth spatial dimension that can be detected within our three-dimensional world. We’d have no idea what it looks like or what kind of a reality a fourth dimension would offer, but if it does exist in the hidden background of our three-dimensional existence, science might be able to prove it’s there."

They just worded better than I did, that is my mistake in explaining. And I don't really want to discuss this with you if you're going to be attacking. UCan brings up some good points without being offensive. UCan we might disagree but I understand what you're trying to say and at one time I believed the exact same. I can discuss with him/her.