It's not random. Everything has occurred through a lengthy process of trial and error.

So... how does he conclude that that "something" was a supernatural creator?

The laws of physics were born into the universe. They are a direct result of its creation.

This means that the laws of physics meant fuckall before. Something coming from nothing? Sure, why not?

>>2621292
So these particles were just sort of there, with their intrinsic properties? And just started... doing stuff? Big bang and all that?

People often attribute things they don't know or understand to supernatural causes. It's been happening since the beginning of mankind. As long as science cannot explain every detail about the beginning of life, the answer for most people will be: "A wizard did it."

No matter how unlikely it is that we would find ourselves in a world where we exist, it is impossible that we would find ourselves in a world where we did not exist,
also, logic AND religion, I am sceptical

>>2621303
Because there had to be a start to get it all in motion, matter needs to be acted upon before it does anything. Matter doesn't explain itself, since it needs something to act upon it. So, something must have created it, and being outside of matter (nature) it is supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments

So.. how about where this "creator" came from? Still nothing I suppose?

>>2621331
It's creators all the way down.

>>2621326

Yeah. I get it. But you're saying that a force we don't yet understand = God. which is a terrible argument.

>>2621312
Care to elaborate? How do you suppose something from nothing would work, even outside of the governing laws of the universe as we understand it? Or is that unexplainable?

First cause != sentient creator

Your coworker is probably the worst kind of psuedointellectual Christfag. They always make the jump from "hmmm shit doesn't completely add up no matter how you look at it" to "so I guess a dude we wrote a book about is the missing link".

My answer to both theists and atheists is that sure, we don't understand everything, and leaving it out to conjecture and learning how to deal with a lack of closure on primal causation is the only real option on how to both retain your intellectual integrity and be able to sleep at night.

>>2621331
The creator wasn't created, because, being supernatural it is above limits as we understand them. It has always existed.

>>2621326
Actually, on a quantum level, Newton's laws don't really apply any more and there's really no cause-effect relationship at all.

Basically, things can happen without being caused. For example, Hawking-Radiation. Particles just appear out of nowhere.

This must be like the oldest philosophical argument in existence; I can't think of an older one than this. As a result, there's about 2 billions arguments about each side, and I could write a book about them (in fact, as I write this, I feel confident that at least one such book has been written, by a famous philosopher, though I'm not going to Google it). Personally? I believe in God, though that's not really my reason.

This part about 'that statistically shouldn't have been able to occur randomly' sounds like easily disproved pseudoscience, though; and again, I say that as a believer. I just would never use that argument.

I'm guessing too that everyone here has a deep-set opinion on this very topic that's really not going to change much based on Internet argument, so I'll leave you to your beliefs, one and all.

>>2621346

>learning how to deal with a lack of closure on primal causation is the only real option on how to both retain your intellectual integrity and be able to sleep at night.

wow, i really like that. nobody's explained it like that before.

God exists outside of logic.

>>2621347

Sorry I should have clarified. I want something solid, not the oldest cop-out in the book.

Isn't it wonderful to know that 'god' is some meaningless technicality.

>>2621371

The problem with this is that logic isn't just some box that things can fall in or fall out. From a human perspective, logic is EVERY SINGLE THING our minds can grasp.

If God truly lies outside of logic, then not only did He make himself completely inaccessible to His beloved children, but He also isn't even worth attempting to understand, unless you're a masochist who likes to torture yourself with failure.

>>2621367
The thing is, I DON'T have any opinions about this. To me there's something dissatisfying about the atheist stance, but at the same time I can't be a theist, I simply have no faith. I don't know if this qualifies as some sort of existential crisis - the more I think about some things, the less joy I'm able to take from life and living. I'd like to resolve this somehow, I'm just in this depressing gray area right now.

The first argument, the initial force. it's doesn't have to be true. Since don't know exactly how time works, it could very well be that everything as always existed.

>shouldn't be able to occur randomly?

basically the laws of the universe is to perfect to not have been created? Again, we don't know a lot about the universe. Could very well be that this the universe balances itself out to seek a universal balance. So even if you could change the power of a force, it would automatically balance the rest of the universe to fit that alteration or change the force back to what it used to be.

>>2621346

So you're saying leave it at "it's the best theory we've got right now"? Seems like it's the only logical option.

>>2621400

You're an agnostic, which is the only rational choice. To accept defeat on unanswerable questions is the only logical conclusion. Now, if I were a particle theorist or a theologian, then maybe my life would have use for hardlined theism or atheism, but it doesn't. I have a strong moral and ethical compass and a good understanding of what I need to understand. Also (and most importantly), I have the maturity to pick my battles, and the cosmological argument is not one of them. I have absolutely no comment on the nature of the first cause and I have no intention of figuring it out. It's quite irrelevant to my life.

>>2621392

Why must He be benevolent? Why must He be All-knowing? Why must He be all seeing?

We ascribe arbitrary characteristics to a being with which we know nothing about.

Atheistfag here, btw.

>>2621418

No, I'm saying that the cosmological argument is one that, by it's very nature, will never be fully answered, and therefore no theory is necessary to live a full and healthy life. In fact, my argument would be that by taking a hardlined stance on it (either way), you could very well be missing out on some experiences in life.

My direct response to him would be, "So what?" Even if what you say is true (which is largely out to conjecture), the implications of your posit means absolutely nothing and leaves us exactly where we started. And since he's getting all theoretical on you, I'd probably then go off on a hard determinist tangent where I talk about how the chances that we had this argument are both infinitely small and 100% because it happened and could happen no other way just to fuck with his head for being a douche.

>>2621441

He doesn't have to be. I'm arguing against this notion of "God lies outside of logic" from within the confines of human opinion on God, which is overwhelmingly that first of all it is a definitive He (complete with capital letters) and that He is a good dude who can do everything and know everything.

The problem with the idea of a "first cause" argument is this:
We assume that everything that exists must have a cause. The Universe exists, and therefore it must have a cause (and the argument labels this cause "God"). Even ignoring that there's no logical reason to assume this first cause to be a Judeo-Christian deity, if we say that "God" exists, then it must have a cause. Unless you want to say there's an infinite line of Gods causing the next one, then "God" is something that exists but is not caused. A single counterexample disproves that all things need causes.

There are logical reasons for Occam's Razor (to seek explanations that do not multiply entities beyond necessity). We can say "God created the Universe. God just exists." But it works just as well to say "The Universe just exists," since we have evidence of the Universe's existence (and we can't say that about God).

The second point OP mentions is sometimes a tricky one. Creationists like to say that evolution can't account for the "increase of information" in a genome. Their arguments rely on misunderstandings of information theory. For example, in colloquial usage, we would consider a fuzzy radio broadcast to convey less information than a clear one. But "noise" is, according to principles of information theory, information too -- just not information we as humans are interested in.

If everything needs a creator, then who created god?

If god was created by another god, then you reach an infinite series of creators, which is not possible within the understanding of our own universe. If we claim that god exists outside the limitations of our own universe, then it could be possible to argue that god either does not need a creator or inifite series of creators is possible, because it's allowed within the limits that god exists in.

However, if we agree that the limitations of our universe does not apply to god, then why does our universe need a creator?

If our unniverse was created by something that is not explainable within our own universe, then why are we trying to explain the existance of our own universe by concepts that originate from the universe itself.

To claim that you universe needs a creator, is to claim that you understand something about existance that can not be explained within our own universe.

Imagine universe like, say, a box. If god created this box, then the box must exist or at least originate from same place as god, which can not be explained. But, by implying that the box must have been created by another entity, you are alreayd trying to explain something that is impossible for you to explain.

He seems to be forgetting that 6B years is a damn long time.

However, I will say this. I'm content with thinking that whatever power gave me existence has the power to continue it in some form or another.

The problem of the unmoved mover is, frankly, an impossible one. Cause and effect is, as best we can tell, an absolute law of nature - nothing happens without a reason. Thing is, if you keep going back, you eventually get to something that happened without a reason. Theists call it "God", atheists call it "the Big Bang", and both of us are full of shit. The only way out is infinite regress, but that has problems all its own. It's a doozy of a problem, and nobody has a decent answer. Thing is, the fact that he chooses to slap the word "God" on his non-answer is utterly meaningless. That doesn't even prove that the Creator is sentient, let alone active in the world, desiring of worship, and named Jehovah.

As for the information-storage argument, it's utter bullshit. Most religious people I know find it laughable, let alone the atheists. The laws of nature govern the universe quite effectively, whether natural or divinely created. Also, if he starts talking about how things worked out so well, go lookup the anthropic principle.

Arguing with creationists is like plaing chess with a pigeon. The'll knock over the pieces, crap on the table and then fly off to boast about their victory.

ffs. You're trying to rationalize your stupid belief that you shouldn't be ruled by religion. I hate that kinda atheist. Fucking hate them.

OP, your coworker is a moron and it's painful to see that you're having trouble even arguing with him. I'm getting embarrassed for you both just imagining how that conversation played out.

>vast amounts of information, atoms and whatnot, that statistically shouldn't have been able to occur randomly.

He's not talking about atoms. Atoms don't carry a whole hell of a lot of information, and while they were somewhat uniform moments after the big bang, now they're pretty fuckin' random, as can be observed by the millions upon millions of strange cosmological phenoma we can see with telescopes.

He's talking about DNA, and it's an argument for intelligent design. Unfortunately for him, it's a retarded argument. For one thing, amino acids (building blocks of DNA) have been discovered from extra-terrestrial sources. It does make itself. They have also been created in a laboratory setting out of inorganic material thought to be present early in earth's history. Now, consider you've got a violent planet, and a few billion years, and it's only got to "randomly" create itself one time, and it seems a hell of a lot more likely than an intelligent creator.

>>2621320
/agree

I do not argue with believers because, well, pic VERY related. My whole family, including cousins and relatives, are all Atheists. We say we are agnostic in public for SAFETY. That is right, fucking safety.

Anyway, my view on the whole "God or no god?" thing is the following:

God, along with all religions, are NOT explanations for reality. They are excuses.
When was Christianity created? ~3000 years ago, something like that.
Did people know about quantum mechanics back then? No.
Did they know about solar systems, calculus, evolution, chemisrty (above the KITCHEN) back then? No.

Did they know shit? NO.

Did they, when asked, come up with religion as a explanation? Yes.
Imagine ancient Egyptians. A young boy asks his father:
"Why are we here, oh father?"
"Eh...umm...The gods put us here!"
"Okay! Yay! now I can continue living my life and just use religion as a excu...explanation for everything I don't understand!"

>>2621608
Another argument is the following:
The truth sucks.

Why?
Well...
The truth:
#Life is as we make it. If someone bullies you, well, that is simply how it is. uncountable billions of little, but important, things occurred leading to your mischief. You and only you can change that, but doing ALL THE HARD WORK YOURSELF.
#There is no afterlife. We simply die. We don't even die, our bodies are just to old or sick to make it, many small things lead to a big failure. Your heart stops, leading to insufficient oxygen for your hyper-sensetive brain. The brain, due to lack of oxygen, ceases to function and you are now brain-dead. Your body can no longer function, and after a while (or already) your body is beyond repair. FUBAR. Done. Dead. Deceased. Nothing remains of you, but peoples memories of you. Nothing.

I can continue forever with this, this cold hearted fucking truth.

OR

The Christian view:
There is a meaning for everything. All your pain, agony and loss is there for a reason. This, along with everything else, is a part of Gods masterplan. You will be totally fucking repaid for all your pain in heaven, where you get a infinite amount of pr0n, loli, pussy, guns, sex, food blablabla! So awesome!!!


Now, fellow robots, you decide:

Which one do you prefer?
Which one do you THINK people leaned and ultimately decided to go for?

That's right. We are weak-willed, pathethic ANIMALS. And we will ALWAYS be. Unless we completely abandon/DESTROY religion and start to believe in our selves.

Read the book:
"God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"
Become atheistic. Become sane. Become awesome.

>>2621473
>>2621477
>>2621529

oh hai, Richard Dawkins. Didn't know you browsed 4chan!

Read "The God Delusion" for the atheist side.
Read "Summa Theologica" for the theist side.

They both take essentially the same rational approach to the topic and present fairly strong (albeit not watertight) arguments for either side. If everyone here would just do this then we wouldn't have to have the same cosmological retread everytime one of these threads pop up.

Theist: Everything is too perfect and complicated to have been random. God must've created us.
Atheist: God is too perfect and complicated to have been random. Something must've created God.
Theist: God is just always there.
Atheist: Does not compute, things can't just always be there. You don't understand.
Theist: Does not compute, things can't just be random. You don't understand.

Repeat ad nauseam for three thousand years and you motherfuckers are still doing it. Fucking read some shit and get enlightened so we as a species can move on.

You bigots take religion as a serious argument. If you are a real fucking atheist, you won't even take the fuckheads seriously. They MAKE UP shit and try, DESPERATELY, to find weird fucking arguments for their shit. See it for what it is: Desperation. Longing.

I admit, God would be awesome if he existed. And he does! In our minds. Not in reality. Reality sucks and has nothing to do with our suffering/happiness/existence.

But who wants to hear this?
Nobody.

So stop acting like you HAVE TO fucking argue with them, let the fucks be ignorant and stupid. Who cares, they wont cure cancer or aids with their shit. Especially not when they don't allow you to wear condoms.

Also:
Religion is corrupt. Just read the book suggested, be amazed at the shit religion has done to our precious little minds over the millenniums.

>>2621460

Time isn't a line it's a plane that covers all possible outcomes at every moment. We had and didn't have this conversation, but our consciousness can only understand that we just did.

go ahead and let him prove that god started the universe

that's no big deal

try to get him to justify that god is a loving or kind instead of a demonic malevolent creature hellbent on causing misery to all

descartes couldn't do it, he basically said "well, lol, god must be good" and just went past it

Life cannot come from non-life

PROVE ME WRONG

>>2621608
Also, pic was unoriginal :3

Perhaps though selective mating, one day the believers and the non-believers will become two separate species. Will there still be creationists?

>>2621662

Its actually more like a giant, infinite 3-d flipbook that bends around areas of high gravity, but its all good, really.

>>2621669

I don't have to prove you wrong.The Miller-Urey experiment proved you wrong over 50 years ago. I don't see how people are so ignorant...

I may just be a hard-hearted old Scientific Christian (not Christian Scientist; they're weird), but IMO, the belief of neigh-infallible science is almost tantamount to having a religious belief.

For those of you atheists how are a bit more open-minded, think of existence as D&D and you'll understand how most rational Christians believe how it works.

God = Gygax/TSR Publishing
Physics = Core Rule books
Scientists = DMs
Laypeople = Fanbase/players.

While not a full-fledged ceremonial dealy, science can be seen as the deity of some atheists. To say that there is no supreme invisible infallible humanoid deity controls everything but a supreme invisible set of infallible rules does control everything seems to be deity substitution.

I'm not trying to rag on anyone's belief here, I'm just saying that when it comes to creation, atheists and theists have a different slant on the same thing happening.

Atheists: The Universe made itself through a big explosion out of nothing.

Theists: [insert deity here] made the Universe out of nothing in an explosive manner.

Either nothing exists forever, or everything exists forever. Anything and everything that can be, is. I'm talking about parallel universes, an infinite number of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_vpEyE6rug

SCIENCIE!

>>2621660
Now, be fair. People look for information that fits their preconceptions, and that's true whether they're Christian, atheist, or believers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

>>2621669
Okay. First, define "life". Second, will you permit me use of molecular assembly processes? Since, you know, if I can assemble all the molecules in a bacterium, I've got a bacterium - is that cool with you? It's just C, H, O and N, after all - no atoms of Godium or Soulium in there.

I would say as a result of this thread I'm more towards the atheistic side. Any reasoning you could apply to an argument for God can also be used to apply to an argument against God.

I'm pretty sure I really butchered some of his points, but I think you all got the drift.

>>2621737
You have completely fooled yourself into thinking ATHEIST ARE JUST LIEK MAH LOL. There's a huge difference between a personal active deity out there who uses human communicators to communicate his HOLAI MESSAGE and CRATED EARF IN DA 6 DAYS. We also don't believe the universe has INFALLABLI RULZ. Learn what the phrase "observation of nature' means

The universe was created when a wizard had a dream about unicorns. PROVE ME WRONG YOU FUCKS

screens50 (1 day ago) Show Hide
0 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply
All these are just theories, have you ever ran into someone that has been through these experiances? No I don't think so!!!! God created everything even this!! If you don't believe than your a fool. There's laws of life now and there'll be laws in the after life and if you don't practice dying now than you'll never make it to tne next level. God is there. He is not in space or time he makes the rules. the mind lives for ever. It is like a universe your thoughts,God spells LOVE!!!

Youtube comment. I lol'd

Wait,
Nobody even read what I wrote?
You all see religion as an argument and not as something derived from need, desperation and a little thouth. Try to view religion from a non-science, non-biological, non-physical view. See the bloody truth. Religion is man made because man is in need of it. Not because god created everything and science can't really prove it wrong or vice-versa.

>>2621939
Why the hell are you calling yourself an agnostic for public safety? I call myself an atheist all the time even though I get arguments and knock ons for it

>>2621939
I read what you said but I don't think religious thought as we know it was that simple. For one, it predates agriculture. Although ultimately I agree that it's origins can be traced to some "need" of mankind, at least a more primitive man.

>>2621314
Well yeah, because if there is a single point, there is no frame of reference so time passes infinitely fast. Therefore, before the Universe, shit could just happen out of nowhere, like how Schrodinger's cat was alive and dead before observed. So, everything "existed" in a schrodinger sort of way and when two objects "existed" simultaneously they then existed, like existed existed. They eventually heat death to the point that their quarks and atoms phase back into nothingness and it happens over and over again until you reach the point where I post this reply.
By the way, this is just an armchair physicist, read a book lazy faggot.

>>2621821
Not sure if you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway.

Apparently you didn't catch the whole Scientific Christian thing. In other words, but "infallible invisible rules" I mean the rules of physics that say that if you slice an atom in half or smash it together to make new elements it will turn into give off energy. I would assume that since we won WWII with that logic and that 100% all fully functioning stars follow this rule means that it's pretty damn infallible. If you drop something while standing on a body large enough to produce gravity, it falls, does it not? If you push something, it moves til something else takes away all of its kinetic energy, does it not?

I will admit that science is more of the observation and cataloging of nature, but this still goes back to my D&D analogy. Sure, you can bend the rules of the game a bit, but they must still be followed. You can, with a little time and effort, create Bat Man if you wanted in D&D, but that character is still subject to the regular rules and has to be made by the rules stated in the rule book.

Also, the original Hebrew word used in the story of creation was "age". God made the existence in 6 "ages". The mere definition of 'day' is rendered moot by the fact that the actual set perspective point of day and night wasn't possible til Day 4 when the Sun and other stars where created to mark the actual Earthly transition of night and day. Learn to study theology.

The sun was created after earth? For fucks sake. God's a fucking idiot. The creation story makes no fucking sense. What a pile of crap.

>>2621939
>>2621975
Scary thing is, until less than 200 years ago, religion was the best explanation we had for the origin of the world. It wasn't a psychological need, it was a best guess at something that they couldn't comprehend because they didn't have the data. We know an eclipse is a coincidence of orbits, but I'm not surprised that the ancients were freaked the fuck out by the sun being eaten in the middle of the day. Same thing here - we know evolution works, anyone before the Industrial Revolution or so didn't, and thus they had to pin it on God(s). The sad part is that it hasn't gone the way of phlogiston and aether.

>>2622035
If you're talking about the clockmaker God, then there's no point arguing. You're sticking a different name on the same theory.

>>2621971
Because I don't want to argue with idiots. It is useless. They just start to hate you. However, if anyone intellectual who is up for a challenge challenges me - I go for it. Always awesome with people that dont LOL HAET U if you disagree.

>>2621975
I didn't explain everything. Well, at least from a super-atheistic-all-for-science point of view.

Here is mah third proof/viewpoint/whatever:
Waaay back, and then I mean waaaaaaaaay back, we were all ooga-booga-cavemen. Back then, what was most important, do you think? That is right, family.
Family and the survival of it.

Now what is religion, in a simple and blunt sense?
Family. A big, multi-continental FAMILY. Who is the priest? The parent. members = children.

And just like when we were cavemen, we protect our family foremost. Then friends, then neutral people. Because religion = family, then what to do when someone opposes this bigass, happy, powerful family?

But what if the priest realises his influence (=power) and uses it to his own profit?
"That guy over there is a heretic! Kill him!" Said the priest, while the guy was actually someone whom offended the priest earlier.

Religion is corrupt + It is a lie = Why I oppose it.

>>2622035
I get the whole scientific christian thing and I used to believe it. Following the principles made me an atheist though

Nobody needs religion. They were all created by ignorant mud people tripping on exotic plants and trying to manipulate people into giving them money and control.

Gnostic theism and gnostic atheism are both retarded.

>>2621277

Infinite regress, his argument is self-defeating.

Fuck theists are dumb.

>>2622062
It was more of a "during" thing. The stuff to make Earth was there, it just wasn't done yet. It was about 40% done.
>>2622063
True. Of course, original Darwin Evolution theory works perfectly within most religions. Basic evolution states that if you put a bird in the desert for long enough, its descendants will adapt to living in desert. New-Age Monkey-Trail evolution states that everything came from bacteria, which is would seem almost as hard to believe as "Poof, there's a Giraffe", as bacteria are neigh-perfect and the Water Bear is a perfect as you can get, so why evolve any further that what you need to?

I had some homeless guy ask for some spare change. He was obviously the shiftless type who fucked his life up doing drugs or being a college dropout or something that left him in this state (certainly can't be crazy; they're too lost in another world to realize how fucked up they are in this one). Anyway, as I flipped a couple of quarters his way he muttered out, "God Bless."

God bless?

Has God blessed this man? I mean, he has no house, no money, no pride, and no sense of self-worth. He has no education and no way to elevate himself to the level approaching a contributing member of society. How has God blessed this man? No, I think if God is around, he obviously cursed this man, and not only him, but the refugees in Darfur, the whores in Thailand, the orphans in China, and even Michael Vick's dogs. If God truly doles out his blessings like the Federal government dishes bailout money, would any of them be in such a deplorable condition? I think not.

It's much easier to imagine the absence of God than to think of his presence. To think he exists only means that he exists to fuck us over, and he's only doing it for the lulz.

>>2622090
Understandable. I suppose I have the backing of African spiritualism, in which the creation gods think that we'll be smart enough to NOT fuck up the planet and then just let us go about our business til needed.

>>2622128
That's a point I brought up to my coworker... That imagining that an all loving creator exists and THIS is how it is... It's horrifying. It's more of a "comfort" I guess to think that such a creator doesn't exist than to think that it does...

>>2622125
That's still retarded. Why the hell do people believe this shit? God even got the order of the animals wrong. Birds before land mammals. Bullshit. Anyone who believes it is being a retard.

If there is a God then I am seriously not impressed by his work. I could do a much better world myself. I would eliminate hunger and poverty and would make every person wise. I would make a world without evil and where everyone could be happy all the time.

>>2622174
But, dude, like, God works in mysterious ways, broseph. You gots to believes.

>>2622177
What a boring as fuck world that would be.
After the first 1000 years, you'd get bored and blow the it up and make War-World.

It's like playing Animal Crossing and getting a perfect town and paying off all of your debt. What's to do after that? NOTHING.

>>2622174
You do realize that in the old Hebrew texts anything that flew was considered a bird and there where giant dragonflies in the geological record before amphibians showed up, right?

>>2622213

Then it's settled. If god exists, he's fucking up the planet out of sheer boredom

>>2622229
Birds evolved from insects? I learn something new everyday.

>>2622255
...why... Yes. Yes they did.
Actually, using the roundabout version of evolution. YES.

>>2622125
That is because evolution, and science, aren't prefect. If they were, then everything would be explained down to the most utterly extreme and nothing would be left to discover. But unlike religion, science is fully open for argue, discussion and CHANGES. That is how science can live. That is what must be done to science - correct it, change it, perfect it. Religion is a static belief while science will ALWAYS change, always for the better.

>>2622125
What's this "perfect" you speak of? Evolution says that things better adapted to their environment survive better. Bacteria do well, and have for the last few billion years, but we seem to do a pretty good job of living too. There's room for both.

>>2622213
That's exactly why the idea of Christianity fails. You look at the world and you're supposed to believe it's ruled by a loving, kind benevolent God? It really makes no fucking sense. Norse and Greek mythology make a lot more sense; gods were a bunch of douche bags playing with humans and really didn't care about them. Fucking monotheistic religions, why did they prevail? Their books are shitty and boring unlike the Norse polytheistic myths.

>>2621392
>gawdblorckz The problem with this is that logic isn't just some box that things can fall in or fall out. From a human perspective, logic is EVERY SINGLE THING our minds can grasp.

pretty much.

>>2621277
I've been diagnosed with depression and bipolar disorder almost 8 years ago when I was still in high school. Typically, it's hard for me to even walk down the street, let alone work, but I eventually found something. Meanwhile, someone I know is buying expensive toys, eating pricey food, and generally living like paris hilton, while on welfare. I went to college, I got an education, and I did all of this without an ounce of assistance from uncle sam. I even once tried to apply for welfare, guess what I got. Jack shit.