Zone1 Religion is not needed if a "golden rule" is valued

[ding]

I cannot explain what happened 14 billion years ago. No one can, other than hypotheses & theories. I am agnostic. I believe only when there is sufficient evidence. Scientists by nature are agnostic in their research methods. You can make up stuff, but educated & wise people see thru the BS.

There's plenty of evidence that the universe popped into existence from nothing being predestined to produce intelligence by the laws of nature and it freaks you out. That's why you deny it.

 

[Blues Man]

I quote only the part I address.

Out of context

You are just another intellectually dishonest poser

 

[Meriweather]

Out of context

You are just another intellectually dishonest poser

We always get to the point where you do not see me, but the poster you have created in your own mind, who you think says something you can trump. Once more, I'll leave you to argue with your own re-creation of me, because you have not heard a word I have said. The reason I take a small portion of your post, and then try to respond just as briefly, because you do not hear what I say, you turn it into something you can rail against. This creates an imaginary post that you can argue in your mind with your imaginary me. I leave you to it.

See you in a few months, maybe. You take the last word now, for I will not be responding as whatever you say will not be to me anyway.

 

[Blues Man]

We always get to the point where you do not see me, but the poster you have created in your own mind, who you think says something you can trump. Once more, I'll leave you to argue with your own re-creation of me, because you have not heard a word I have said. The reason I take a small portion of your post, and then try to respond just as briefly, because you do not hear what I say, you turn it into something you can rail against. This creates an imaginary post that you can argue in your mind with your imaginary me. I leave you to it.

See you in a few months, maybe. You take the last word now, for I will not be responding as whatever you say will not be to me anyway.

Goodbye

 

[Arlette]

If Evangelicals only had taken the golden rule seriously, they wouldn't be hated today

 

[ding]

We always get to the point where you do not see me, but the poster you have created in your own mind, who you think says something you can trump. Once more, I'll leave you to argue with your own re-creation of me, because you have not heard a word I have said. The reason I take a small portion of your post, and then try to respond just as briefly, because you do not hear what I say, you turn it into something you can rail against. This creates an imaginary post that you can argue in your mind with your imaginary me. I leave you to it.

See you in a few months, maybe. You take the last word now, for I will not be responding as whatever you say will not be to me anyway.

He has strong opinions which are not well thought out. Which is the reason he does the things he does. It's not so much that he believes what he believes is correct as it is that he believes he can't be wrong. Which is the exact opposite of the approach I take and why my positions are well thought out. I'm constantly challenging my beliefs before I ever discuss them with others.

 

[Meriweather]

He has strong opinions which are not well thought out. Which is the reason he does the things he does. It's not so much that he believes what he believes is correct as it is that he believes he can't be wrong. Which is the exact opposite of the approach I take and why my positions are well thought out. I'm constantly challenging my beliefs before I ever discuss them with others.

Whatever it is, he doesn't hear me, not even when I use a laser focus on a single thought. In fact, that is ignored (or worse, twisted) even more quickly.

 

[BreezeWood]

Whatever it is, he doesn't hear me ...

- it's called a response ...

 

[ding]

Whatever it is, he doesn't hear me, not even when I use a laser focus on a single thought. In fact, that is ignored (or worse, twisted) even more quickly.

He's on a mission.

And he doesn't think he's got religion.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

There's plenty of evidence that the universe popped into existence from nothing being predestined to produce intelligence by the laws of nature and it freaks you out. That's why you deny it.

I simply deny YOUR "evidence", which is twisted "science".

 

[ding]

I simply deny YOUR "evidence", which is twisted "science".

It's not MY evidence. It's science's evidence.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists - and apparently Mormons - have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Here is the testimony of a world renowned cosmologist who will tell you that the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing.



Do you have evidence that disputes EVERYTHING I just said?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

People of faith are simply explaining our perspective and hadit has done an excellent job. We recognize the authority of God, and some of us come to be in awe of its wisdom and excellence. When something fazes us, God's advice is both sought and cherished. God is the most highly esteemed being in our existence.

People who publicly hold God in contempt are going to be blinded by their own contempt, and cannot be expected to understand what is beyond that cloud of contempt.

You are making a LOT of assumptions in the direction that you want to believe. No need for any real evidence. That is BLIND faith.
What makes your "God" more real than other "Gods"?

 

[ding]

What makes your "God" more real than other "Gods"?

You mean besides being born into this world and resurrecting himself?

I usually don't like to engage in discussions on multiple gods because there aren't multiple gods. There are multiple perceptions of God. But I decided to make an exception for you.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

It's not MY evidence. It's science's evidence.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists - and apparently Mormons - have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Here is the testimony of a world renowned cosmologist who will tell you that the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing.

Do you have evidence that disputes EVERYTHING I just said?

My "evidence" is COMMON SENSE. No ONE knows what happened 14 BILLION years ago and beyond. There is "evidence" for a THEORY, and Evolution has a lot more evidence for how we came to be.

 

[ding]

My "evidence" is COMMON SENSE. No ONE knows what happened 14 BILLION years ago and beyond. There is "evidence" for a THEORY, and Evolution has a lot more evidence for how we came to be.

Basically what you are saying is that the universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence offends your atheistic world view. As well it should because it literally shatters it.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Basically what you are saying is that the universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence offends your atheistic world view. As well it should because it literally shatters it.

What you are saying is that scientific agnosticism on universal creation beyond evolutionary theories behind human "intelligence" & the "big bang" offends your theistic world view. As well it should because it literally shatters it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are MANY religions, and most are thousands of years old when few were able to read, and even fewer understood scientific knowledge about the universe that is evident today.
Which religion is best? Why would you choose a religion when its leaders don't understand natural, scientific reality?

Empathy and a golden rule is all one needs to be "ethical".

There’s been many times I could have got away with crimes.

Got away from people.


But not God.

People who don’t believe in God have no fail safe limits on their behavior.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There’s been many times

You mean There have been, not There's been, i.e., There is been or There has been.

I could have got away with crimes.

You mean you could have gotten away with crimes, not "got" away.

Got away from people.

Gotten away.

But not God.

Your god was no English teacher.

People who don’t believe in God have no fail safe limits on their behavior.

With help from others, most people develop a healthy conscience or feedback loop that positively impacts their behavior. Others develop mental illnesses. Good luck citing evidence demonstrating that "People who don’t believe in God" behave any worse (legally or ethically) than those who do. "Belief in God" currently drives ethnic cleansing is Israel. "Fail safe limits" my ass.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are making a LOT of assumptions in the direction that you want to believe. No need for any real evidence. That is BLIND faith.
What makes your "God" more real than other "Gods"?

Indeed. It's textbook circular reasoning:

People who publicly hold God in contempt are going to be blinded by their own contempt, and cannot be expected to understand what is beyond that cloud of contempt.

Equivalent:

People who publicly hold Atheism in contempt are going to be blinded by their own contempt, and cannot be expected to understand what is beyond that cloud of contempt.

 

[ding]

What you are saying is that scientific agnosticism on universal creation beyond evolutionary theories behind human "intelligence" & the "big bang" offends your theistic world view. As well it should because it literally shatters it.

No. It offends my scientific worldview and reinforces my belief that the universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence shatters yours.