If God doesn't exist...

[PoliticalChic]

I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.


Atheism is the a priori requirement of communism, Liberalism, and all of Leftism.
To be a secularist....as you are, you must disregard, disparage, and mock religion.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor." The Schwarz Report | Essays



Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??

I don't even know what this has to do with the original argument aside from you just wanting to shit on liberalism

your quote there also reveals an interesting tidbit, do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

 

[PoliticalChic]

And the source of the material for that "big bang'?

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can you come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?


Of course you can't.

....the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
Atheistic 'scientists' advance total nonsense....and in an attempt to obviate a belief in God, you pretend to accept it.


So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

We don't know what caused the big bang and we may never know, but that's a better answer than coming up with any you want to fill that gap. Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

when studying science, atheist scientists tend to leave ideas of a god out of it because they're completely irrelevant and not helpful at all

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.


All sorts of nonsense is promulgated by fake science, in the attempt to bolster a disrespect for religion.
Krauss and Richard Dawkins (the book mentioned above) is but one.

Another nonsense theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
a. . "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

b. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
"Panspermia (from Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning "all", and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids, asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You really should know more about the subject.You appear, instead, to be the poster child for government schooling.

 

[Epitah]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset."

You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......

....are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

 

[forkup]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.

 

[Epitah]

You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......

....are you?

As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact. I sure hope this doesn't lead to more ad-hominem bullshit and ranting about communism.

Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.

"Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."

Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...

a. Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
"Panspermia (from Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning "all", and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Only a fool would support these three.

Would that be a fair description of you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......

....are you?

As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact. I sure hope this doesn't lead to more ad-hominem bullshit and ranting about communism.

Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there.

"As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact."

Soooooo.....it is but one more example of a lack of understanding on your part?

Perhaps I can set you on the correct path.

1. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge."
2. If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. This, of course, was the great fallacy and flaw of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. It is the reason that France was turned into an abattoir with over half a million slaughtered.
3. Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people. Dennis Prager
4. There is no morality associated with either reason, which becomes rationalization, nor with science, which tells us what we can do, but not what we should do.
5. ’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.
   
   Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men. “Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......

....are you?

As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact. I sure hope this doesn't lead to more ad-hominem bullshit and ranting about communism.

Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there.

"That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there."


Ann Coulter has claimed this:
"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."


Would that be an accurate synopsis of your education?

 

[forkup]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.

"Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."

Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...

a. Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
"Panspermia (from Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning "all", and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Only a fool would support these three.

Would that be a fair description of you?

According to your link Stephen Hawking for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.

 

[Epitah]

The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge."

Systems before and without Christianity have existed and dealt with injustices, it's been a thing forever. Also, I would argue the Bible advocates for many injustices in the modern day, so, yeah.

If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. This, of course, was the great fallacy and flaw of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. It is the reason that France was turned into an abattoir with over half a million slaughtered.

What? The French revolution was caused by dissatisfaction with the power of the monarchy and cultural changes by questioning the authority of the Church. It was the reaction to these attempted changes that caused it. I do not even understand how you can reach this conclusion.

And yes morality was made up by humans. We generally base it on what effect any given action has on ourselves and others.

Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people. Dennis Prager

The morality of abortion is highly subjective. You are denying a potential child life but by denying a woman an abortion you are forcing her to allow something else to live off of her at her expense. But this is an entirely different debate and you seem to just want to distract things.

• There is no morality associated with either reason, which becomes rationalization, nor with science, which tells us what we can do, but not what we should do.

• ’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even mos

Science is the study of nature and reason is rational thought, no shit it doesn't give us moral guidelines because that isn't their functions.

You don't seem like the type of person who would chat with or care much about people outside of your circles, how have you determined most people who don't follow your gospel specifically are not moral?

You just seem to be freaked out by the prospect of there being no objective moral precedent, you take comfort is there being a universal system all should be following.

But regardless, this got way off course. This doesn't have anything to do with the original Big Bang discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.

"Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."

Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...

a. Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
"Panspermia (from Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning "all", and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Only a fool would support these three.

Would that be a fair description of you?

According to your link Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.

"...the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you."

1. Actually, I don't know of anyone smarter than I.
Let's consider you, for example.
You've basically admitted that you are clueless about the Multiverse theory, yet attempt to stand with the nonsense.

In short, here it is: there are an infinite number of universes, each with a variation on the laws of nature and physics that apply here on earth.

If you doubt my description, avail yourself of this essay, by physicist Alan Lightman
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine


2. "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7



"...statistical improbability...."???
God is less probable than "an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours."
Really??? By what metric?



Now....tell me again that you accept the Multiverse....


And, please, be sure to ask me why it is so very important for atheistic scientists to put out this nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge."

Systems before and without Christianity have existed and dealt with injustices, it's been a thing forever. Also, I would argue the Bible advocates for many injustices in the modern day, so, yeah.

If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. This, of course, was the great fallacy and flaw of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. It is the reason that France was turned into an abattoir with over half a million slaughtered.

What? The French revolution was caused by dissatisfaction with the power of the monarchy and cultural changes by questioning the authority of the Church. It was the reaction to these attempted changes that caused it. I do not even understand how you can reach this conclusion.

And yes morality was made up by humans. We generally base it on what effect any given action has on ourselves and others.

Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people. Dennis Prager

The morality of abortion is highly subjective. You are denying a potential child life but by denying a woman an abortion you are forcing her to allow something else to live off of her at her expense. But this is an entirely different debate and you seem to just want to distract things.

• There is no morality associated with either reason, which becomes rationalization, nor with science, which tells us what we can do, but not what we should do.

• ’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even mos

Science is the study of nature and reason is rational thought, no shit it doesn't give us moral guidelines because that isn't their functions.

You don't seem like the type of person who would chat with or care much about people outside of your circles, how have you determined most people who don't follow your gospel specifically are not moral?

You just seem to be freaked out by the prospect of there being no objective moral precedent, you take comfort is there being a universal system all should be following.

But regardless, this got way off course. This doesn't have anything to do with the original Big Bang discussion.

The French Revolution, and the dictatorships that it gave birth to, can be summed up in these words, the very antithesis to morality and religion:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


You have no problem accepting Trotsky's dictum, ......do you.

 

[forkup]

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.

"Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."

Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...

a. Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
"Panspermia (from Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning "all", and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Only a fool would support these three.

Would that be a fair description of you?

According to your link Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.

"...the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you."

1. Actually, I don't know of anyone smarter than I.
Let's consider you, for example.
You've basically admitted that you are clueless about the Multiverse theory, yet attempt to stand with the nonsense.

In short, here it is: there are an infinite number of universes, each with a variation on the laws of nature and physics that apply here on earth.

If you doubt my description, avail yourself of this essay, by physicist Alan Lightman
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine


2. "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7



"...statistical improbability...."???
God is less probable than "an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours."
Really??? By what metric?



Now....tell me again that you accept the Multiverse....


And, please, be sure to ask me why it is so very important for atheistic scientists to put out this nonsense.

I've seen your post before politicalchic, I promise you there are quite a lot of people smarter then you. I'll even claim that MOST people are smarter then you. As to me being smarter then you, I probably am, I'm very certain that I'm wiser then you. I'm wiser because "I don't know" is not something I'm ashamed of. If you read my post correctly you would have noticed that I didn't defend the multiverse theory. I said that a created universe was an equally valid assumption in absence of proof. So when you try to call me a fool, just know that to me, someone who blusters like you do in arguments, is actually saying, " my arguments are weak", if they weren't weak you wouldn't try to put people on the defensive and try to win on merit. And btw hypothesising is the first step in the scientific process, so why shouldn't they try to put it out and try to prove it?

 

[Epitah]

The French Revolution, and the dictatorships that it gave birth to, can be summed up in these words, the very antithesis to morality and religion:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


You have no problem accepting Trotsky's dictum, ......do you.

Like I've been saying, morality can be very relative. It may be contradictory to YOUR morality, but I assure you these dictators were just as certain as you they knew what was right as well.

Well, I sure would like it if humans continued existing, because I'm human and it would suck if this species all died. I certainly don't condone murder.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The Big Bang is supported. What you don't seem to get is that we don't need to know the exact cause to know something happened, you think that just because we don't have a specific explanation means the existence of the result is completely invalidated.

Yes I see how the scientific wizard, namely yourself, is supporting the mystical mysteries that defy explanation in one hand and his magical teapot in the other.

Allow me to clarify.
You haven't shown me any information of value.

So now the universe has nothing of value for you... Then why are you still here?

I don't see a reason to be skeptical of the Big Bang itself. I do however see a reason to be skeptical of anyone asserting any given cause without supporting it.

You see no reason to be skeptical when scientists say that the natural laws of physics did not exist in the first few seconds after the big bang

Have you just admitted you're just naturally drawn to explanation that sounds the simplest and easiest to digest to you instead of just admitting you don't know

Well gee... I don't know. What does Occam's Razor say about this dilemma?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

If God is eternal then God had no beginning and will have no end.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Epitah]

Yes I see how the scientific wizard, namely yourself, is supporting the mystical mysteries that defy explanation in one hand and his magical teapot in the other.

I'm no scientist, I've never claimed I was. And no, the Big Bang does not defy explanation, we just don't have a proper one. I still don't think you understand the concept of burden of proof here.

So now the universe has nothing of value for you... Then why are you still here?

You've just stated you're a pantheist and argued over science. That's not showing me the universe. Ideas of a god, or the universe embodying a god-like entity are useless to me.

You see no reason to be skeptical when scientists say that the natural laws of physics did not exist in the first few seconds after the big bang

Skepticism is one of the things science is all about, if we had no doubt we'd have no reliable science. When did I say the laws of physics didn't apply seconds after the BB? I said it's fuzzy to how they apply before it happened.

Well gee... I don't know. What does Occam's Razor say about this dilemma?

you're saying a miracle happening isn't making a bigger assumption? how is assuming a miracle happening caused the big bang less of an assumption than saying the big bang happened but we don't know what caused it?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….

It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.

"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.

"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.

I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....

...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...

...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?

*****CHUCKLE*****