Some questions I have. A large part of religious debate is that we're too complex to have come to existance naturally on our own. That being the case, wouldn't any god, having infinite(?) more complexity, require it's own creator? Assuming not, how are we different? At least, from the viewpoint that, without taking action, an abstract creationist god technically never exists until they take action.

Abstract in this sense meaning to be a beginning, or outside of time.

I took up smoking to quit vaping

Oh so the channel for free thinking doesn't allow naughty words

Fuckin cool

And they suck at it too

The bot I mean

The mods here have been pretty cool

Yea

Your next line is oh ok

Nani

1 lady named Karen raided

The earth is flat. It has no edges and is sphere shaped.

To say that we're too complex to have developed naturally would imply that an actual god or intelligent designer would be simpler than we are.

Gravity

Photos

Balloons

Well do you believe gravity is related to mass?

Do you have a non edited photo of a flat earth?

Because even if photos aren't perfect, they're a supporting factor

Ok

But photos CAN be real

So do you have one of a flat earth

One that isn't as supposedly obvious as globe fakes

One that can actually function as a representation of a flat earth

And what about magnetic poles. Tides. Eclipses. The fact that if I move in a single direction I end up in the same place again.

How was a flat earth formed

Why can I not stand on a really tall building in New York and see Japan

Or Africa

And that doesn't answer my question about gravity being related to mass

Mkay then

I just got back. Let me read through this wall of text

So, you're saying that God is not physical and never needed to be created, and is outside of all Physicallity and Time itself, yet is still able to manipulate such things. How do you think those things are manipulated then? Or is it that the only manipulation that ever occured was the creation of the world itself.

When was the intelligence implemented into the design is essentially my question

And what is your support for that claim

Because it sounds like you aren't arguing against evolution, but saying that evolution is possible because of an intelligent designer, which isn't really the point of this room.

?

Also, things existing doesn't prove they were intentionally created.

Things just happen sometimes without reason.

And I agree that flaws don't disprove intelligent design, it just proves it wasn't done perfectly. Or at the very least, in a perfectly efficient way.

But that doesn't make them wrong. It just supports evolution.

It doesn't disprove Intelligent Design

Those vestigial traits could have been planned is what I'm saying

That's a great way of putting it yes

It could be said to not be malevolence or failure though, but a necessary intentional flaw, and another thing that's beyond our understanding.

So this argument basically goes nowhere.

But this isn't a place to argue about whether or not God implemented evolution

This is Creation vs. Evolution

Well you're gonna have to have that conversation in another room

And I agree with you because I'm an Atheist

Well he bailed so...

@Dizaster anything else you'd like to bring to the discussion?

Guess not

He'll prb be back

Thx. Gn

Man

😎

If anyone wants to argue go ahead and @ me

I'm looking elsewhere

Balloons disprove the firmament

Not even the big kind

The kind you buy at Publix

Let one go and let me know when you see it hit the roof

Also, a horizon proves nothing, as it exists in both theories

Also, If you want to use God in your argument, you have to give evidence of his existence first

Vacuum Chambers do not disprove gravity

What do you think the "Firmament" is made of anyway

And, at that distance, I could shine a laser pointer at the moon and see where it hits

The $20 green kind

Then where do the tides come from?

You mean a physical orb of light or like, a bulb

How do eclipses happen then

Ok, so how exactly is light supposed to cool things

Because if that was possible, we could have freeze rays

That's not "Light" though. And those use a lot of energy

How do you introduce energy into a non physical sytem

Even with $20 billion I couldn't pull half this hoax off

Yeah but that's a movie

No. This would be more akin to a play

That happens every single day

All the time

What's it supposed to be

That looks like a 3d generated globe

I'm not going to vouch for NASA's validity

Or what they present

But I can't say for 100% sure was a bubble and not space debris

If you can prove to me the earth is flat I'll worship whatever tf

That's a sentiment I agree with

This is how debate should be

Again, I don't care about NASA. I just think the earth is Sphere shaped and that space exists

This is debate @8BitDouglas

The costs of how much this hoax would cost. The reasoning for it. The likelihood of it succeeding without fail.

The physics implications of a flat earth

Well, I believe in the fact that gravity is real. And based on mass.

A flat earth would have it's mass so spread out that gravity would angle inward as you moved out

Going forwards the edge would feel like walking up a wall

A thick disc

Well that's not exactly flat then

Then flat earth is a pretty misleading title