What's your crazy ideas about the existence of the universe?

[truthBtold]

Because human understanding of "God" is flawed.
Why? Because the universe is too blizzarre to simplify over some intelligent life forum wanting to be worshipped or idolized.
The universe looks like a sandbox of gazzillion possibilities waiting to happen, like breaking a pool table.

A galaxy away (or even this galaxy) might likely contain a solar system with a habitable planet and forms of life that we've never seen before. This tells us that this whole universe is random but has the same laws as well.

Heck there could be a creator to this vacuum or sandbox if you tell me, but we weren't the purpose of the creation of the universe.

I guess I find it impossible for laws to exist without someone to put them there. (Alien I think)

Or We could be mold on a sandwich !
My head hurts lol

If an alien put the laws here, who put the laws there for the alien? You'll go crazy taking that route. If only the natural universe exists, and nothing supernatural, then there can be no reason for the universe to exist. It's simply here and we're simply here. There's no reason.

And..........

[Bad Writer]

Again this isn't me suggesting god, did aliens create our universe ? Are we bacteria to them?

If you're open to these other possibilities, why aren't you open to God doing it?

No one is saying he didn't. At what point did speculating on this possibility make it a reality for you, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence?

[Whateverist]

I just can't wrap my head around it, the universe going through this cycle without cause or a "creator" (alien lets say).

Again this isn't me suggesting god, did aliens create our universe ? Are we bacteria to them?

Naw, shit just happens. And then inorganic shit become organic shit and somewhere along the way there develops consciousness and intention.

If you prefer I can translate that into woo for you:

"The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection, and the water has no mind to retain their image."

Maybe as sentient shit we just can't help ourselves from looking for intention even in pre-sentient shit. But that too is probably just a bunch of shit.

[Esquilax]

If an alien put the laws here, who put the laws there for the alien? You'll go crazy taking that route. If only the natural universe exists, and nothing supernatural, then there can be no reason for the universe to exist. It's simply here and we're simply here. There's no reason.

And does it make you uncomfortable, thinking that the universe, in all its immensity, wasn't put here specifically for us, occupying this one small corner of it?

Do you think that discomfort counts as an argument for why it isn't so?

[Lek]

If an alien put the laws here, who put the laws there for the alien? You'll go crazy taking that route. If only the natural universe exists, and nothing supernatural, then there can be no reason for the universe to exist. It's simply here and we're simply here. There's no reason.

And does it make you uncomfortable, thinking that the universe, in all its immensity, wasn't put here specifically for us, occupying this one small corner of it?

Do you think that discomfort counts as an argument for why it isn't so?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable thinking that the universe wasn't put here just for us. Who knows how many creatures inhabit the universe? Vegamo said he was open to the mystery of the universe and then immediately says except for God, which means to me that he's not open to it. If you're open to all possibilities which have not yet been proven wrong then you wouldn't dismiss God off hand, especially since so many have attested to being aware of his presence. My current opinion is that science is not capable of proving or disproving God since it fails to consider the existence of the supernatural and so he's wasting his time trying to determine why.

[Esquilax]

It doesn't make me uncomfortable thinking that the universe wasn't put here just for us. Who knows how many creatures inhabit the universe? Vegamo said he was open to the mystery of the universe and then immediately says except for God, which means to me that he's not open to it.

I think the important step, before we can be open to god and the mystery of the universe, is to demonstrate that god is a part of the universe first. Without that you're kinda putting the cart before the horse.

If you're open to all possibilities which have not yet been proven wrong then you wouldn't dismiss God off hand, especially since so many have attested to being aware of his presence.

I'm not dismissing anything, except arguments from popularity.

My current opinion is that science is not capable of proving or disproving God since it fails to consider the existence of the supernatural and so he's wasting his time trying to determine why.

Science works based on what can be detected, tested and falsified. If you can't detect the supernatural, which is the only way that science would be unable to test it, then how do you know it exists in the first place?

[Lek]

Science works based on what can be detected, tested and falsified. If you can't detect the supernatural, which is the only way that science would be unable to test it, then how do you know it exists in the first place?

That's why I say that relying only on science to prove or disprove things puts you in a box. If 100,000 people told you that the way they found God was to open themselves up to him and seek him, would you be interested in trying or would you say "I can't prove that by science, so it's just not true"?

[Bad Writer]

Science works based on what can be detected, tested and falsified. If you can't detect the supernatural, which is the only way that science would be unable to test it, then how do you know it exists in the first place?

That's why I say that relying only on science to prove or disprove things puts you in a box. If 100,000 people told you that the way they found God was to open themselves up to him and seek him, would you be interested in trying or would you say "I can't prove that by science, so it's just not true"?

You're assuming here that we haven't tried to find god in the way proscribed by the countless religions out there. Results vary so widely across the board, that personal testimony about someone having a personal relationship with a god becomes very unreliable. In science, when an experiment can't be replicated, then it isn't considered to be a viable method to solve squat.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Science works based on what can be detected, tested and falsified. If you can't detect the supernatural, which is the only way that science would be unable to test it, then how do you know it exists in the first place?

That's why I say that relying only on science to prove or disprove things puts you in a box. If 100,000 people told you that the way they found God was to open themselves up to him and seek him, would you be interested in trying or would you say "I can't prove that by science, so it's just not true"?

Appeal to popularity isn't logical, neither is belief in something lacking evidence.

[Esquilax]

That's why I say that relying only on science to prove or disprove things puts you in a box. If 100,000 people told you that the way they found God was to open themselves up to him and seek him, would you be interested in trying or would you say "I can't prove that by science, so it's just not true"?

You can prove that with science: gather believers from every religion including some offbeat or defunct ones, and add an equal number of atheists, agnostics, deists and so on. Have them all "open themselves up and seek" god, according to any method you would like, and see just how many find, and more importantly, what they find.

My prediction is that all the christians will find precisely their denomination of christian god, all the hindus will find their particular god, all the jews would find their god, all the muslims will find their god, all the worshippers of Bast will find Bast. The atheists won't find anything, and in a sterile environment without outside influences from others, the agnostics won't either, and those are the ones most open to the kind of thing you're suggesting.

See, that's the problem: you propose something that is testable, but you dismiss the very idea of actually testing it because I think you know it won't produce the results you're looking for.