If God doesn't exist...

[Damaged Eagle]

I'm no scientist,...

Well that's obvious... Which means all you have is your faith in the wizards of scientific consensus.

...I've never claimed I was.

Has the world ended from the damnation of man-made global warming yet as predicted by your great high priest Al Gore of scientific consensus yet?

*****CHUCKLE*****

And no, the Big Bang does not defy explanation, we just don't have a proper one.

Well that's convenient... Yet as I recall you consider it 'scientific fact'.

Do you always blindly follow things with blind faith singing Hallelujah and crusading against anyone who might dissent with your faith in the great word of 'scientific consensus'?

I still don't think you understand the concept of burden of proof here.

Do you? (See above responses in this post and contemplate/meditate on them.)

You've just stated you're a pantheist and argued over science.

????? I think this requires decryption on your part for the rest of us.

That's not showing me the universe.

Showing you the universe in which way?

Ideas of a god, or the universe embodying a god-like entity are useless to me.

In what way do you mean 'embodies a god-like entity'?

Skepticism is one of the things science is all about, if we had no doubt we'd have no reliable science.

Yet you are more than willing to blindly follow your wizards of scientific consensus as a faithful follower in a holy crusade against the dissenters.

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.

No you didn't and that is my mistake...

Well they're pretty fuzzy for a few seconds after the Big Bang occurred also if you must know.

So how does that fit into the great scheme of scientific consensus when all the natural laws of physics do not exist?

Does it mean that the cat is half-dead or half-alive as god rolls the die?

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?

I've already given the definition of a miracle a few times in this thread...

...Perhaps you should go back a read them.



*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

Well that's obvious... Which means all you have is your faith in the wizards of scientific consensus.

You don't need to be a scientist to study and understand scientific theories and models.

Has the world ended from the damnation of man-made global warming yet as predicted by your great high priest Al Gore of scientific consensus yet?

What does that have to do with this?

Well that's convenient... Yet as I recall you consider it 'scientific fact'.

Do you always blindly follow things with blind faith singing Hallelujah and crusading against anyone who might dissent with your faith in the great word of 'scientific consensus'?

I don't think you understand this yet.

We know the Big Bang happened, we have evidence that leads us to that conclusion. It is the most reliable scientific model of how the universe came to be. Just because we don't have an explanation of how it happened does NOT undermine the evidence we have. You still think that people who accept the Big Bang need to prove what the cause is even though no one has made an assertion of what it is specifically, all we are saying is that there is one. If anyone is saying there is a god or it's magic particles smashing together and exploding or whatever other thing your imagination can come up with, they would need to prove it and everyone rejecting the claim is justified in doing so until that proof is given. They are not the ones who need to disprove the claim, because otherwise we'd just have to accept anything that we can't technically disprove.

Showing you the universe in which way?

I don't know, you're the one telling me you showed me the universe. I haven't gotten a damn thing out of you other than you telling me you feel things. And as your feelings aren't verifiable, it's pretty useless info.

In what way do you mean 'embodies a god-like entity'?

As far as I know about pantheism, the universe embodies some kind of godlike entity.

Yet you are more than willing to blindly follow your wizards of scientific consensus as a faithful follower in a holy crusade against the dissenters.

Because there is an understanding of Science, and they add up with what has been presented by scientific studies. That's not faith when science has been presented as the best way to understand and research reality and has not required faith in the past.

No you didn't and that is my mistake...

Well they're pretty fuzzy for a few seconds after the Big Bang occurred also if you must know.

So how does that fit into the great scheme of scientific consensus when all the natural laws of physics do not exist?

Does it mean that the cat is half-dead or half-alive as god rolls the die?

Yeah, screw the thing I said earlier this is probably going to require some decryption for everyone but yourself. Quantum physics applied to the Big Bang when it was too small for regular physics.

I've already given the definition of a miracle a few times in this thread...

...Perhaps you should go back a read them.

what is the definition of a miracle in your mind

 

[BreezeWood]

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

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

 

[Dr Grump]

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??

That's not even my point. I find it laughable that on one hand religious freaks think evolution and the BBT are nuts, but think this invisible deity appeared out of nowhere from nothing (but will find all sorts of excuses to say otherwise "oh, he was always there", or "it's a metaphysical thing that is beyond your comprehension" BS) to try and justify their fluffy beliefs.

As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me. My lack of belief has nothing to do with any political philosophy. It's more about common sense. As for your link. Bullshit. Morality, good and evil etc are not a monopoly held by any religion. Devout Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have all killed indiscriminently in the name of their god...nobody is innocent.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Of course. Another cop out....

 

[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.

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?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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?

"I've seen your post before politicalchic, I promise you there are quite a lot of people smarter then you."

Well......let's investigate that premise....specifically the cases of you and your chosen champion...Stephen Hawkings.
You posted this:
"...Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich (sic) is a better endorsment (sic) for it then,...."

Really?

1. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

2. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

Oh....and, did I mention to you that when I am not revealing the asininity of posters like yourself, I am busy spinning straw into gold?
You believe that.........don't you?




Shall I await your 'proof'....or shall I proceed with a long and eventful life, with both of us understanding that you are a moron?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"As I've been saying"....not "Like I've been saying..."

If morality has no eternal basis....then you should fear the day that some Leftist government decides to put to death all those with less than a 90 IQ.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Of course. Another cop out....

You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.

There is no other understanding of the term "God."



And, If you are unsure of the meaning of "imbecile," it is listed in the dictionary under your picture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

Where did it come from?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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??

That's not even my point. I find it laughable that on one hand religious freaks think evolution and the BBT are nuts, but think this invisible deity appeared out of nowhere from nothing (but will find all sorts of excuses to say otherwise "oh, he was always there", or "it's a metaphysical thing that is beyond your comprehension" BS) to try and justify their fluffy beliefs.

As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me. My lack of belief has nothing to do with any political philosophy. It's more about common sense. As for your link. Bullshit. Morality, good and evil etc are not a monopoly held by any religion. Devout Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have all killed indiscriminently in the name of their god...nobody is innocent.

"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
...is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism,

....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.

 

[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.

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?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like 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.

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?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

 

[forkup]

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?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You don't need to be a scientist to study and understand scientific theories and models.

When they're laid out for the layman perhaps... That's only so long as the scientist is being truthful about all their findings and aren't being intentionally deceiving.

What does that have to do with this?

Everything.

I don't think you understand this yet.

I'm sure you're wrong.

We know the Big Bang happened, we have evidence that leads us to that conclusion. It is the most reliable scientific model of how the universe came to be. Just because we don't have an explanation of how it happened does NOT undermine the evidence we have. You still think that people who accept the Big Bang need to prove what the cause is even though no one has made an assertion of what it is specifically, all we are saying is that there is one. If anyone is saying there is a god or it's magic particles smashing together and exploding or whatever other thing your imagination can come up with, they would need to prove it and everyone rejecting the claim is justified in doing so until that proof is given. They are not the ones who need to disprove the claim, because otherwise we'd just have to accept anything that we can't technically disprove.

My proof is all around you. The universe exists therefore God exists.

Have I made any other claims about God?

What part of Pantheist don't you understand?

I don't know, you're the one telling me you showed me the universe. I haven't gotten a damn thing out of you other than you telling me you feel things. And as your feelings aren't verifiable, it's pretty useless info.

So if I touch (feel), hear, see, smell, or taste, something my 'feelings' aren't verifiable now?

Then how do you know anything exists?

*****CHUCKLE*****

As far as I know about pantheism, the universe embodies some kind of godlike entity.

Gee... That must have took a lot of thought to restate the same thing you said already.

Because there is an understanding of Science, and they add up with what has been presented by scientific studies. That's not faith when science has been presented as the best way to understand and research reality and has not required faith in the past.

It's faith when people, such as yourself, simply follow the and support the scientific consensus without understanding the underlying science itself.

Yeah, screw the thing I said earlier this is probably going to require some decryption for everyone but yourself. Quantum physics applied to the Big Bang when it was too small for regular physics.

Are you sure? You admit that classical physics did not apply during that time... Prove to us all that quantum physics applied any better.

what is the definition of a miracle in your mind

I took the time to go back and look at your remarks on the Big Bang moment. If it's too much trouble for you to go back and look for my definition of miracle I'm perfectly willing to continue making you look like a fool. Shall we discuss Newton's Laws some more or move on to another scientific principle and see what your knowledge is like in that area?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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.

"As I've been saying"....not "Like I've been saying..."

If morality has no eternal basis....then you should fear the day that some Leftist government decides to put to death all those with less than a 90 IQ.

You know a common trend I've noticed online is that when people begin to run out of arguments they begin to attack trivial grammar mistakes as a feeble attempt to discredit the other.

Why not come up with an actual, compelling argument for something instead of just ranting about lefties more? You seem to fall back on this a ton, you act like a political cartoon depiction of a right winger. Yes, different ideologies come in to power all the time, so what? Scared of getting executed under your conditions?

You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.

There is no other understanding of the term "God."

lots of people have different ideas of what god is, there are plenty of different definitions

Where did it come from?

We don't know, but that is better than saying GODIDIT.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

Is it now? Where's your proof on that? Can you be certain that the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics applies before the universe began and afterwards? If you do then...

Prove it!

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
...is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism,

....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.

you don't even have an argument anymore

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'd love to hear what it is.

do you even know what you're saying anymore

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot.

That's interesting... So anyone who has a belief in God is a religious zealot?

If you would be a rational person,...

I see... So everyone who believes in God is not rational according to you.

...the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one.

What makes you think that I wouldn't be interested in discovering how God preformed his miracle?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary.

You make assumptions on untested proof and no investigation of the matter. You sir are no better than the people you discriminate against.

That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist.

Yes... People like you are what caused the dark ages.

An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

So has the world ended from the heat death predicted by your global warming theology preached at the alter of scientific consensus to their faithful followers yet?

*****CHUCKLE*****