Forum

I have read the article in Wikipedia more than once. And I cannot even imagine a more absurd theory. The point is that we are being misled by absurd theories, and we swallow them without even trying to understand them.

Your praised Bible is also full of absurdities, if you want to go there, and hundreds and hundreds of millions "swallow it without even trying to understand it." I won't be original and come up with something of my own - it has long been dissected and rightly ridiculed (by agents of the ZOG:)), and I, as a child, was amazed by the nonsense in it at every turn. The book is interesting as fiction, the philosophy is not bad in places, and even sometimes historical, I think... But to perceive it as a "user manual" is, you know:rolleyes: ...

2) An explosion can only destroy!

Please give at least one example in which an explosion can create a harmonious structure or a harmonious complex object?!

Please: explosion welding, a supernova, a volcanic island - these are, of course, superficial and obvious examples, but I think it's enough?

3) If we assume that it is possible to create the universe with an explosion, and that the explosion created a strictly regular structure - then we can assume that a spaceship can be built using the explosion of an aircraft factory. These are equivalent statements, and while the absurdity of the second is obvious to everyone, the absurdity of the first is somehow not even considered.

If we assume the existence of an infinite/timeless space and, accordingly, time - then what is impossible here? The so-called Big Bang, in my personal opinion, is only one of an infinite number of such phenomena in our world (Universe or whatever else to call EVERYTHING...), and not the absolute Beginning. In short, for infinity, it is absolutely normal that the numbers from 1 to 1000 will be "777" billions of billions of times in a row, and building an airplane with an explosion is generally a trivial matter:cool: .

Who is this legislator whose laws are described and studied by physics?
If we assume that the universe has a разумный creator, then wouldn't he have created an instruction manual for it? Wouldn't it be logical to study the instructions from the chief designer?
If I buy a complex mechanical or electrical device and I have no experience with it, wouldn't it be logical to read the instructions from the creator of this device?

Let's start with the fact that it is completely illogical to deny the gradual development of the Universe itself and the evolution of living organisms from simple to complex, but at the same time to assert that there is a supreme being that is nothing compared to an amoeba and a virus, and that it itself evolved, that is, excuse me, "always existed." In my opinion, this theory is no better than the theory of the self-creation of the Universe, even if you kill me:) .

The fact that the budget in Russia, America, and Germany allocated for research on extraterrestrial civilizations is 10 times greater than the budget of these countries is also a mystery.

:smile04: http://bomz.org/demotivators/demotivation.php?demotivator=15743 (I forgot how to post pictures nicely:( )

1) If there is a concept, then there is also an object that is described by this concept. If there were no God, then there would not be such a concept as God.

Flying Spaghetti Monster He exists!:eek: :smile11: :smile27: :smile03: :smile44: