What is time?
Nothing but a concept made by man, simply. A concept that is there to measure itself, and that is relative to the subject at hand. Considering it is a concept of man, it still controls humanity by large.
If there is a god, what created him and how?
Whatever reply will be said to this, it will be nothing but speculations.
To take a more metaphysical way of explaining it, though:
There is a god. There are actually more than one, and they are made from the human consciousness and imagination, fears and wishes. Whether you believe in a god or not, the fact that religion and faith is still a part of people's lives shows that the god does exist.
Who wrote the Bible?(proof?)
It should be a collection of many different writings done by a number of people of which we know little or nothing. For further information, have this
link from the top of my google search.
Are questions just as important as answers?
What a philosophical question. I consider questions to be more important than answers, simply because it gives a bit of mystique to life, and because the answers are unable to be 100 percent correct. Too much knowledge, whether it is correct or incorrect gives a sense of power, and power corrupts.
If everything was just created, what was it created from?
Considering which way you plan on seeing this, it could have done how religions describe it, how theories describe it, or you can simply conclude it is not an answer that will alter your life in any way, and ignore it.
How could matter appear out of nothing?
To take the rubber band theory of science, it did not. The universe deflated into a tiny point, where it inflated again in what we call the Big Bang.
One of the basic laws of nature is that nothing can be created from nothing, so either way, it would have been created from something.
In the way of the Bible: God did it. From clay. Or something.
How did humans evolve to have consciousness?
Being self aware? Having an intelligence to be able to communicate through signs and speech alike? It was either that, or being able to defend and survive in any other way. The basic evolution through survival of the fittest would give beings with a higher intelligence a better stand in life, and curiosity and the playfulness of humans simply did that we continued to invent, find answers and develop ourselves.
"Intelligent selection" can be paired with this to give an outcome like this.
If you would go to hell...how would you feel eternal pain if you left your body and brain with your nerves behind?
1. Thought, emotions and senses are all just electrical impulses. Technically all you would need was a consciousness based on impulses.
2. Considering I think you are referring to the biblical hell, you are going to take your body with your to heaven or hell.
3. In event of a soul, it would probably be metaphysical pain that would impact on your soul for it to be shredded and feel pain.
How powerful is the human mind?
Powerful enough to alter reality.
Just look at a paranoid schizophrenic. They believe that someone is out to kill them, and to them, this is real.
Just think of what lies and misunderstandings have changed our world. The media paints the world with certain colours, and this will be considered reality.
For all you know, it could be all in your mind.
How old is the universe?
Quite old.
Why do I look at things from a perspective of a nonhuman being?
I have no idea. Why do you?
If you talk about giving animals or objects human features (the dog is sad, the trees looks mean), it is because humans have a way of anthropomorphising non-human beings to make them more like them, or to understand them better.
For this one, I just seem to never look at things from a human, or my side. Though something could be annoying for me and help animals or plants, I side with the plants or animals instantly.
Anthropomorphising, most likely, then. That, and you are probably brought up to oddly antisocial when it comes to humans.
Why do some Christians shut off their minds to science?
Because that type of Christians are acting like idiots.
On the other hand, so does certain Atheists.
This ties with the power of the human mind. If you believe something is true, and can justify it however to yourself, then it must be true. Then it does not matter how other thinks, they are wrong, and you have no reason to talk to them, and if you do, you will try to make them see the light. Whether this light is that their religion is right, or that all things that cannot be measured and sensed is wrong.
Why is science considered a religion?
It is? Probably because some people act like they are religious fanatics about science. Or that they seem to almost worship the answers science gives them.
--
fear, closed mindedness, preferring fantasy over reality, believing other peoples lies about science...
Fantasy has a habit of being better than reality. Escapism shows this.
I do doubt that that is why that kind of Christians turn away from science as a solution. It seems more to me that it is closed mindedness, along with believing people are lying. And that they have been brought up to find it to be the only truth. If they along with that has been attacked by fanatic Atheists about their religion, they are more than likely to develop a defending shield based on their religion, and thus cast away any argument that does not fit their view.
It's a fallacy created to try and put theory on the same footing as assertion. Religion is entirely based on faith (lack of proof), science is entirely based on proof.
I would say it was more a search of finding the truth more than proof, considering what science is made out of is theories. Unless you are a positivist and stand stubbornly on the side of "if it can't be measured or sensed, it is not there", there is no such things as proofs, only a constantly falsified string of theories that move towards, but probably never will reach, an ultimate truth.
stereotype......... im a christian and i believe in all science has proven.
I am going to point out he did write "Some". The point that you are responding that way to something not directed at you makes it seem like it actually is directed at you, thus showing you are turning your back on science.
That is rather Hippocratic Kirby, as using your logic, you are saying that god exists no matter what thus making you the closed minded one.
To him it might be true.
I wonder which is more hypocritical. Kirby stating that God has no end or beginning (considering the question is hypothetically stating that God does exist), or you who states that God does not exist, totally ignoring the question, and pointing out Kirby is being hypocritical for replying to the question.
Woooosh!
