Post: #51

(11-03-2014 11:56 AM)Deluge Wrote:  First of all, you and your link have misunderstood the context of "Render unto Caesar". Jesus was being baited into publicly giving treasonous answers that would surely have him executed, this in the scripture itself. He couldn't say outright to the High Priests (who were colluding with Rome) and their spies that the Romans have no right to Jewish taxes (an idea popular among Jews at the time, it was the reason the First Jewish-Roman war even started). By saying "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" he got away with implying that the Romans have no right to Jewish taxes without getting himself executed. The implication was Jewish taxes are God's, not Caesar's. Jesus was only asked this question in the first place because his enemies knew he opposed paying taxes to Rome.

You're right, they were trying to trick him. However, you seem to assume that what he said was a deceitful answer and a political calculation to save his own skin rather than an earnestly held belief of his. He was a spiritual man and not a political one. The Pharisees and Sadducees, who were loyal to Rome, were offended by his message for a variety of reasons and they may (I don't know for certain) have had concerns that he would bring Roman scrutiny down on all Jews, but there's simply no evidence I've seen for me to say that anti-Roman sentiment motivated Christ.

Post: #52

^No reliable evidence Jesus even existed. That miracles are absurd goes without saying.

I like the poll idea. I doubt anyone's mind will be changed, though.
But I'll leave this clip of Arif Ahmed beating the shit out of WL Craig, the "best" apologist around: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1QmanQePh8

Post: #53

(11-03-2014 12:05 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 11:56 AM)Deluge Wrote:  First of all, you and your link have misunderstood the context of "Render unto Caesar". Jesus was being baited into publicly giving treasonous answers that would surely have him executed, this in the scripture itself. He couldn't say outright to the High Priests (who were colluding with Rome) and their spies that the Romans have no right to Jewish taxes (an idea popular among Jews at the time, it was the reason the First Jewish-Roman war even started). By saying "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" he got away with implying that the Romans have no right to Jewish taxes without getting himself executed. The implication was Jewish taxes are God's, not Caesar's. Jesus was only asked this question in the first place because his enemies knew he opposed paying taxes to Rome.

You're right, they were trying to trick him. However, you seem to assume that what he said was a deceitful answer and a political calculation to save his own skin rather than an earnestly held belief of his. He was a spiritual man and not a political one. The Pharisees and Sadducees, who were loyal to Rome, were offended by his message for a variety of reasons and they may (I don't know for certain) have had concerns that he would bring Roman scrutiny down on all Jews, but there's simply no evidence I've seen for me to say that anti-Roman sentiment motivated Christ.

"An earnestly held belief" that an unpopular foreign occupier does not deserve your taxes is also a political one. The evidence is right there in the Gospels themselves. Calling yourself the Messiah WAS both a political and religious statement. You can't be the successor to King David, ruling the Jews and bringing about the Kingdom of God without removing the Romans from the Promised Land. It's not like Jesus could just share ruling the Jews with Caesar, and that's why the Romans treated him the way they did.

(11-03-2014 12:15 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  ^No reliable evidence Jesus even existed.

Most historians do believe that a person called Jesus of Nazareth did exist, i.e a "historical Jesus". Whether or not he was the Son of God, you'd think Jesus's brother James might've thought it important to mention to Paul that his brother didn't actually exist when they met each other (again, decades after Jesus supposedly died).

Post: #54

(11-03-2014 10:55 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

I disagree. It's easy to be an atheist.

You just shout "God doesn't exist because science!" and you're accepted into the big giant secularist cultural marxist hugbox where you can fight the evil hetero white men and their religion, but oddly you must remain silent about other religions because to talk about them would be intolerant. See the treatment Dawkins and Harris have gotten as of late when they started being more critical of Islam.

Atheism today has gone beyond skepticism or non-belief. I can accept it for those reasons because I was one precisely because I was skeptical about the existence of God. I just think you're wrong about that.

However, the atheist movement is now solidly part of the cultural marxist/SJW crowd who want to eliminate Christianity so they can have gays everywhere, trannies, and all other sorts of freakish perversions on display so there will be more reprobates, more societal decay, and more people going to hell.

See Atheism+

There is so much that science can't explain. Intuition being the most obvious of it all. Scientists in particular have a habit of closing their minds to new ways of looking at things until overwhelming evidence says to the contrary.

While I don't agree with rampant over emotionalism, I don't agree with the closed minded credentialism that goes on in research circles.

Regardless, secular individuals are weeding themselves out by not having children. We can thank their love child evolution for removing them from society.

Post: #55

(11-03-2014 12:41 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:55 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

I disagree. It's easy to be an atheist.

You just shout "God doesn't exist because science!" and you're accepted into the big giant secularist cultural marxist hugbox where you can fight the evil hetero white men and their religion, but oddly you must remain silent about other religions because to talk about them would be intolerant. See the treatment Dawkins and Harris have gotten as of late when they started being more critical of Islam.

Atheism today has gone beyond skepticism or non-belief. I can accept it for those reasons because I was one precisely because I was skeptical about the existence of God. I just think you're wrong about that.

However, the atheist movement is now solidly part of the cultural marxist/SJW crowd who want to eliminate Christianity so they can have gays everywhere, trannies, and all other sorts of freakish perversions on display so there will be more reprobates, more societal decay, and more people going to hell.

See Atheism+

There is so much that science can't explain. Intuition being the most obvious of it all. Scientists in particular have a habit of closing their minds to new ways of looking at things until overwhelming evidence says to the contrary.

While I don't agree with rampant over emotionalism, I don't agree with the closed minded credentialism that goes on in research circles.

Regardless, secular individuals are weeding themselves out by not having children. We can thank their love child evolution for removing them from society.

I think evolution and natural selection are real and observable. We adapt to our surroundings over many generations in order to better survive. The weak die, the strong survive, and we physically change because of this.

However, I do not buy secular theories about the origin of life or the universe.

As far as them weeding themselves out is concerned? I doubt they will. Yeah, they typically don't have a ton of kids but they try to recruit everyone else's by being in positions of authority and influence in society.

Post: #56

I dont see why people think their god is the one true god over the other 700 so called gods either.

Hail Zeus!

Post: #57

(11-03-2014 12:41 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:55 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

I disagree. It's easy to be an atheist.

You just shout "God doesn't exist because science!" and you're accepted into the big giant secularist cultural marxist hugbox where you can fight the evil hetero white men and their religion, but oddly you must remain silent about other religions because to talk about them would be intolerant. See the treatment Dawkins and Harris have gotten as of late when they started being more critical of Islam.

Atheism today has gone beyond skepticism or non-belief. I can accept it for those reasons because I was one precisely because I was skeptical about the existence of God. I just think you're wrong about that.

However, the atheist movement is now solidly part of the cultural marxist/SJW crowd who want to eliminate Christianity so they can have gays everywhere, trannies, and all other sorts of freakish perversions on display so there will be more reprobates, more societal decay, and more people going to hell.

See Atheism+

There is so much that science can't explain. Intuition being the most obvious of it all. Scientists in particular have a habit of closing their minds to new ways of looking at things until overwhelming evidence says to the contrary.

While I don't agree with rampant over emotionalism, I don't agree with the closed minded credentialism that goes on in research circles.

Regardless, secular individuals are weeding themselves out by not having children. We can thank their love child evolution for removing them from society.

"Regardless of the truth..."
That's like saying "I'm glad RVF is only a few thousand people, the plugged-in will always outnumber them, so they're wrong." No.

Atheism Plus was a tiny SJW movement that died quickly. It has nothing to do with people who aren't convinced that a god exists based on the evidence.

You are an atheist, too - you just believe in one more god than the atheists do.

Post: #58

Nope. I just don't care and don't have time.

People should be free to choose what they want to worship.

It's only when religion imposes on my freedoms, laws, and privacy do I take issue.

If religions minded their own business the world would be a much nice place.

Post: #59

(11-03-2014 12:58 PM)Glider Wrote:  I dont see why people think their god is the one true god over the other 700 so called gods either.

Hail Zeus!

Religions, like organisms, grow and spread over time through a form of natural selection. Tribes had their own local religions, which were merged into those of cities, then regions, then into what we now know as nation states. Some survived this process (Asian religions), others were revealed at later stages and spread largely through brute force (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), but most simply died of natural causes as early empires took over large swaths of land (European pagan religions) and large-scale homogenous cultures began to form.

From a spiritual perspective, there is no way of knowing which one is the highest truth, although well-documented revealed religions tend to have an upper hand in the argument over obscure pagan beliefs. Before Judaism, most religions spread orally and weren't historically verifiable to any degree, while scientists universally agree Jesus existed in the time and place stated in the Bible, for example.

Post: #60

(11-03-2014 12:15 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  ^No reliable evidence Jesus even existed. That miracles are absurd goes without saying.

I like the poll idea. I doubt anyone's mind will be changed, though.
But I'll leave this clip of Arif Ahmed beating the shit out of WL Craig, the "best" apologist around: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1QmanQePh8

If there's "no reliable evidence," why is the scholarly consensus that he existed then?

Also, Craig doesn't speak for all Christianity. He believes in a theistic personalist God. I believe in a classical theist God.

With regard to "God of the Gaps" (i.e. Science can't explain it, therefore God did it), I hate those arguments. Things like the origin of life, the origin of the universe are part of God's master plan. He created the laws that would lead to these things, and then continued to sustain the creation (which is why the "God does nothing for 13 billion years" thing is a canard). To me, it's much more awe-inspiring to say that God created self-sustaining processes than it is to say that God had to perform miracles time and again.

He made Himself known to human kind through the Israelites, and later, through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Also with the regard to "we just go one god further" thing that atheists throw out, it doesn't really apply. That works for a very weak theistic personalist perspective, or an anthropomorphic God perspective (which is often a strawman anyway).

Post: #61

(11-03-2014 12:58 PM)Glider Wrote:  I dont see why people think their god is the one true god over the other 700 so called gods either.

Hail Zeus!

If you study enough pre flood stories, you'll notice similarities between all of the them. Uranus was the primal greek sky God that birthed all of the gods after him. Strangely enough, there's a similar "all powerful" sky god in other religions as well.

(11-03-2014 01:05 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  You are an atheist, too - you just believe in one more god than the atheists do.

Post: #62

I became an atheist at age 17.

But as the red pill anti-feminist manosphere has shown me, I believe that religion, though scientifically false, is evolutionarily advantageous to humans and binds society together.

Post: #63

I believe in the BasedGod.

Post: #64

Long post incoming. Prepare yourself.

I think that calling religion "the ultimate blue pill" is silly (although to be fair I once held that view myself). In reality I believe it's the exact opposite: religion is the ultimate red pill. It's something that you might not want to believe (specifically, the idea that there is an all-powerful God to whom you will one day answer) but if you think and read about it enough, the conclusion is inescapable.

In my mind, the atheistic/agnostic view is completely absurd. The idea that the entire universe and everything in it is some kind of accident has got to be, with all due respect to those who believe in this, the stupidest theory anyone has ever seriously put forward. I think there is understandably debate over who or what God exactly is, but the idea that there is no generative force behind the creation of the universe is simply insane. It's something that only out of touch moderns like ourselves could believe, as we've been lulled into stupors by the endless distractions and comforts we now enjoy.

Nothing in the physical universe can exist without cause, and the idea that the physical universe itself, with all of its incredible complexity, just appeared out of a random explosion has no logic or coherence. Logic dictates that there had to have been something outside of the physical universe that was responsible for its creation. There must exist something outside the parameters that we recognize as encompassing reality, because those parameters themselves are aspects of creation. Time, space and causality must have been created by an entity not subject to any of them. That is God. He is logically necessary. Anyone expressing an atheistic worldview is simply saying that they haven't followed through the implications of the idea to its conclusions. Basically, you've simply passed the buck on literally the most important and fundamental question of your entire existence. I urge atheists to reconsider their views from a rigidly logical stance. I think if you are honest about this you will inevitably conclude that some kind of non-physical force must have been responsible for the creation of the universe.

Now, if we accept that some kind of creative force (which we call "God") is logically necessary, the question then shifts to: is God knowable, and if so, who or what is he? This is the question that divides mankind into the numerous religions of the world. From this starting point, it is easy to lose hope in answering the question immediately. With so many choices, how can we be sure we're right? Isn't it easier just to declare that even if we admit God is necessary, the safest and most logical thing is to not throw our lot in with any religion, since statistically we're likely to choose the wrong one? Well, not necessarily. We can make some logical assumptions about God that help us narrow down our options.

First, we can assume that God is interested in us. The universe was created for a reason. None of this is an accident or a throwaway cosmic science experiment, it's simply far too complex and intricate to be otherwise. And given that human beings are totally unique aspects of creation that stand apart from everything else, we must assume that God intended this to be so. Human beings are special. To put it one way, we are the stars of this show, to the amazing extent that the universe was especially created for us to inhabit.

Second, we can assume that since God is clearly so interested in humanity (a vast collection of persons), he himself must have some type of personality. He is not some unknowable cloud of energy. He must have characteristics that we would recognize as "human" in the broad sense. Does this mean he rides a cosmic horse or wears hats, or does other human-like things? No, not necessarily. It simply means that he has a distinct identity. He is knowable. When we speak of God, we speak of someone, not something.

Third, we can assume that given the innate thirst for religious belief in mankind, that God wants us to know him. Humans are hardwired to seek out God, and the vast, vast majority of men who have lived and died on the Earth have been theists of some type. Of course, this does not prove anything - just because 99% of people believe something does not make it true - however, we can conclude that religious belief of some type is fundamental to the human condition, and thus if we accept the idea of a personal creator then we must also conclude he intended that we seek him.

Fourth, we can assume that since God is a "person" who wants us to know him, that he would not leave us in the dark. He would communicate enough about himself to lead us down the right path. And since he is God and by definition all-powerful and omniscient, we can further assume that God's truth and revelation would not be hidden deep in some obscure text or limited to some tiny group of people. God's message would be universal in scope, applicable and known to all mankind. God would ensure that his message would be available to any who earnestly sought it out.

Fifth, we can assume that since God's message is universal, it must speak equally to the hearts of everyone in the world. It would not be a message bound by particular ethnic practices or traditions. It would be something recognizably different, something that fundamentally appeals to human beings of every race and culture.

I could probably list a few more assumptions, but I'll stop there with these five. Now, given these logical assumptions about the nature of God, I believe we have a much easier task in determining which religious belief actually represents the true God, the creator of the universe. In my view, Christianity becomes to the clear choice. Why, exactly? I'll try to be brief.

To begin with, there is the Bible. The Bible is a remarkable book, and the more you read it and learn about it, the more obvious it becomes that it was divinely inspired. The coherence and non-contradictory nature of its message, the circumstances of its composition (40 different writers over 1500 years in three languages), the extremely statistically unlikely preservation of accurate original texts and many other features make the Bible totally unique among books. The grandest works of purely human composition absolutely pale in comparison, as do other religious texts. The Bible is simply a masterpiece which humanity alone was incapable of writing.

Then there is the message of Christianity: that man is essentially a fallen creature in need of redemption. On its face, it's a strange message. It's not the kind of message that man would invent. Most other man-made religious traditions express the idea that man is fundamentally good, or is at least capable of becoming good through his own effort. This is naturally the sort of idea we would expect men to create. Christianity takes the complete opposite approach, which is highly unusual and sets it apart from other religions. The corollary to man being a fallen creature is the revelation of Jesus Christ, God's son, as redeemer, through faith in whom mankind can be reconciled with God. God sets the bar fairly low. He only asks for our honest faith. Everyone who seeks shall find. Remember, this is exactly what we'd expect from a personal God who wants us to know him.

Finally, consider the fruits of Christianity. Are men better of as Christians than as atheists, or as Muslims, or as believers in any other religion? In the modern West we are currently living through the decline of Christianity. Do you think things are going well? Are our societies doing great? Hardly. Spiritually we are dead. Culturally we are circling the drain, socially we are an absolute mess. In contrast, the West thrived when it embraced Christianity. In fact, there is ample evidence to believe that Western civilization is in fact inseparable from Christianity, a hypothesis which in my opinion seems more true with each passing day.

On a personal level, as well, I believe a man is clearly better off as a Christian. I know I am. Christian faith gives a man strength, endurance and peace that he didn't have before. As an analogy, if you think of human beings as computers, think of Christianity as being the operating system designed for us. It's how we function at our best. Sure, you can run another OS on the human computer, but you'll get a lot of crashes and bugs (depression, social dysfunction, nihilism, self-destructive behavior, etc...). Christian faith does not make a man perfect by any means, but genuine faith unquestionably improves his life.

If anyone has any questions about Christianity or would like to discuss anything I wrote in this post further, feel free to PM me.

Post: #65

^ You say that having a God simplifies the birth of the universe. Read my long post again. I argue purely mathematically that an existence of a god would add and further complicate the equation while accomplishing absolutely nothing. If we add god to the equation we still know that he has never interfered in the Universe after its creation. Therefore there are zero effects that happen from adding him to the equation. This makes him unnecessary - even if he exists.

You also are heavily underestimating the vastness of the universe and the power of randomness. With how many combinations are possible. it is INEVITABLE that a world like ours would be created. There is nothing special about us at all. Now statistically there could also be other sentient races out there on other planets. Making us less special again by your logic. But there need not be. 1/[a very large number] is practically 0. That is all that our existence shows. The power is randomness. Embrace it.

And did you just call the Bible non-contradictory? The greatest piece of literature? For starters, the Vedas are a far greater set of books than the Bible can ever claim to be. But without debating particular religions at all [even though the Vedas are not religious books, but scientific works] all these books are just written by people. They might be good ways to live your life sure. I'm sure it is better to live "a christian life" in the west than it is to follow modern atheism [which I am distancing myself from] but even if you choose to follow that life, you have to realize that there is noone out there for you. You are free to live by any code. just don't lie to yourself and to others.

If God wrote a book he would have written a book that was absolutely correct about everything, not one that dates itself harshly as the knowledge of men discovers more truths. Christianity, and most religions, have done more to keep down discovery of truths than anything else. If you assume a certain dogma is divine truth, then it can not be questioned despite evidence to the contrary.This does nothing more than limit progress.

Post: #66

(11-03-2014 01:55 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:58 PM)Glider Wrote:  I dont see why people think their god is the one true god over the other 700 so called gods either.

Hail Zeus!

If you study enough pre flood stories, you'll notice similarities between all of the them. Uranus was the primal greek sky God that birthed all of the gods after him. Strangely enough, there's a similar "all powerful" sky god in other religions as well.

(11-03-2014 01:05 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  You are an atheist, too - you just believe in one more god than the atheists do.

I've always found the common threads of various religions and mythologies to be very interesting. The connections between Greek, Roman, Norse, Buddhist, Celtic and Christian legends give pause for thought.

Again, I am also interested why people go so hard after things like 'there is no historic evidence jesus existed' etc. but give other religions a pass. For example, the Bodhi tree under which Siddhartha achieved enlightenment still exists but when was the last time you heard someone express something like "fuck the Buddha, he wasn't a real person"

The fact that claims to Jesus' existence get people worked up so much than another religion making a claim to their once earth bound figures is why I'm drawn to it. Why does Jesus get under people's skin?

Post: #67

I am completely willing to believe that Jesus existed. Mohammad existed. Gautam Buddha certainly existed. Krishna most likely was a person too.

These were people with strong messages. A lot of their message was very good. Based on their knowledge at the time it was mostly "true". But that is all they were is people. Might some of these religious pioneers been people with political agendas. Maybe [especially in the Middle East].

Also, a lot of Greek mythology and thus the Roman mythology, comes directly from the older Indian mythology. Zeus is Indra. Apollo is Surya. etc. Even the stories are similar. Indra was a deviant who was once cursed with having a thousand vaginas on his body for sleeping with a Rishi's wife.

These are all man made. Enjoy them as a worse written Game of Thrones. That is all.

Post: #68

You can't say that God exists inside the Universe. The Universe is contingent, not necessary. Scorpion invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which roughly follows the following format.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause

Since the Universe cannot cause itself, we are forced to come an uncaused cause, which is timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. Such a being would be deserving of the name God.

This is a highly important argument in philosophy of religion, and has been so since the 70s. Personally, I do not like this argument, though it is logical, and it does work. I prefer either the Thomistic argument or the Leibnizian argument, which I will propound in another post.

Post: #69

Philosophy is dead. We have no more need of philosophy to attempt to explain our place in the world. The Physics is so advanced. We do not need cause for being. I implore you to pick up a book on Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Electro Dynamics, and Primordial Cosmology. You will see that the answers are all there.

Post: #70

(11-03-2014 06:17 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  ^ You say that having a God simplifies the birth of the universe. Read my long post again. I argue purely mathematically that an existence of a god would add and further complicate the equation while accomplishing absolutely nothing. If we add god to the equation we still know that he has never interfered in the Universe after its creation. Therefore there are zero effects that happen from adding him to the equation. This makes him unnecessary - even if he exists.

You also are heavily underestimating the vastness of the universe and the power of randomness. With how many combinations are possible. it is INEVITABLE that a world like ours would be created. There is nothing special about us at all. Now statistically there could also be other sentient races out there on other planets. Making us less special again by your logic. But there need not be. 1/[a very large number] is practically 0. That is all that our existence shows. The power is randomness. Embrace it.

The physical universe could not have appeared out of nothingness regardless of any amount of time or number of combinations for randomness to occur. The appearance of physical universe presupposes its own existence as a physical space. It must come from something, and its origin cannot also be physical. Randomness and chance do not exist without a universe. Mathematics does not exist without a universe. Time does not exist without a universe. Matter does not exist without a universe. Without these things, it is impossible for the universe to come into being. I don't think you understand that nothing exists prior to the origin of the universe, which includes every concept you can imagine, except God. This is why God is necessary as the prime mover/uncaused cause.

(11-03-2014 06:17 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  If God wrote a book he would have written a book that was absolutely correct about everything, not one that dates itself harshly as the knowledge of men discovers more truths. Christianity, and most religions, have done more to keep down discovery of truths than anything else. If you assume a certain dogma is divine truth, then it can not be questioned despite evidence to the contrary.This does nothing more than limit progress.

God wrote the book exactly the way he wanted it to be. It is perfect according to his purpose. I'm curious how you would write the Bible if you were God? Would you predict the winner of the 1978 World Series in 1000 B.C.? What kind of book would God write? The Bible is not intended to be the supreme compendium of human scientific and technical knowledge. It is a spiritual book. It says everything it needs to say and nothing it doesn't. Supposing that you (a human being) would know better how to write the Bible than an all-powerful and omniscient creator displays a stunning arrogance.

Arrogance is, I believe, at the heart of the rejection of God. People do not want to be accountable to God, the same way that the teenager rebels against his parents. They think that they know better, that they have figured everything out on their own. The old ways are antiquated and stupid. The parents are out of touch. God is dead. Faith can only come through humility, through admitting that we are ultimately powerless and totally ignorant in the face of the infinite. Wisdom begins when you realize that you know nothing. Then you can find faith.

Post: #71

Briefly, to respond to some of Slim Shady's points:

1. BICEP2 seems to have found nothing. The gravitation ripples are consistent with dust. Inflation still remains unproven.
2. The laws fail as time approaches 0. This is a consequence of having an initial singularity, which by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, suggests a beginning. You can get around it with a theory of quantum gravity, but as Alexander Vilenkin has said, we wouldn't know the questions to ask in the first place.
3. We're not totally sure that randomness is built into the laws of nature. Quantum indeterminacy is consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is incomplete. There's also data for the De Broglie model, which is deterministic.
4. We know what happened at Planck time.
5. God is (by nature) outside the Universe. This is a fundamental tenet of theology.
6. You don't actually have to have souls to invoke an afterlife. There's a very interesting article in a book called Debating Christian Theism, which you can purchase on Amazon.
7. Having a unifying law doesn't eliminate God. If God is a law giver, then why would there not be a law that describes all reality?
8. The Bible is not a book of science. The criticism that it's scientifically inaccurate is nonsensical.

Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth through the quantum vacuum fluctuation/quantum tunneling process/Hawking-Hartle no boundary principle."

The Bible was written so that people would understand on a basic level. Criticizing it for not being scientifically inerrant is stupid at best.
Most of the arguments you're invoking seem to come from scientism, which is self-refuting. If all things worth knowing are scientifically verificable, is that statement worth knowing?

Post: #72

(11-03-2014 06:57 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Philosophy is dead. We have no more need of philosophy to attempt to explain our place in the world. The Physics is so advanced. We do not need cause for being. I implore to pick up a book on Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Electro Dynamics, and Primordial Cosmology. You will see that the answers are all there.

"Philosophy is dead" is a philosophical statement. You're invoking scientism, and rather badly I must add.

Post: #73

(11-03-2014 06:57 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Philosophy is dead. We have no more need of philosophy to attempt to explain our place in the world. The Physics is so advanced. We do not need cause for being. I implore to pick up a book on Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Electro Dynamics, and Primordial Cosmology. You will see that the answers are all there.

You have just basically admitted that you have faith. You believe in God. The name of your god just happens to be science and mankind. You are worshipping the knowledge of mankind and taking its power based on faith. None of those subjects are anything but faith-based, fanciful speculation. It is scientists fumbling around in the dark and making grand proclamations about the universe using science that only a few dozen people in the world can fully comprehend, if that. You, and everyone else who believes in the supremacy of science, simply take their words on faith.

Post: #74

Scorpion, I understand that the Universe would have to come from somewhere. I also know Truth Teller that we are confused at what happens very close to t=0. There are theories on the big bang and crunch happening in cycles, theories on our universe created from a blag hole in another universe. Etc etc. I will not argue with speculation however.

As to the Primordial B mode discovery, only few people refute that saying it is just dust from the milky way. Inflation is accepted. Again however besides the point.

So now going back. We dont know what happened before the big bang. Where did it come from? I do not know. At least yet. However one day we might know. If a God is working outside of the Universe, then where is this outside pray tell me? You are using the same flaw you accuse me of. You are essentially creating a space that can not interact with our universe where God exists. But then occasionally he does interact with our universe? Such as when writing a book? A book that is not really true. If you really are going to argue that the Bible is the perfect spiritually necessary book, then you must accept every single thing written in there is true. You sure there aren't some crazy passages in that book that make no sense? That's not the Bible I recall.

The Universe is already too complicated. Let us attempt to understand that before complicating it with creating an imaginary supreme being that works outside this scheme and randomly interferes. We are getting closer to Quantum Gravity or w/e the "Theory of Everything" ends up being. Don't stall our progress.

In the end Christianity is just propaganda. You guys have been nothing more than salesmen for centuries. Violent salesmen at that. And also good salesmen. A good salesman will prey on your weaknesses to get you to buy his product. That is all you are doing. People are inherently stupid and fearful however. And they fall for it.

It is really sad that even the atheists of today are dumb cunts in general. The feminists are atheists out of fear. Christians are christians out of fear. Noone is willing to take charge of their lives. Both sides believe in pseudo-science.

Post: #75

(11-03-2014 07:02 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 06:57 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Philosophy is dead. We have no more need of philosophy to attempt to explain our place in the world. The Physics is so advanced. We do not need cause for being. I implore to pick up a book on Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Electro Dynamics, and Primordial Cosmology. You will see that the answers are all there.

You have just basically admitted that you have faith. You believe in God. The name of your god just happens to be science and mankind. You are worshipping the knowledge of mankind and taking its power based on faith. None of those subjects are anything but faith-based, fanciful speculation. It is scientists fumbling around in the dark and making grand proclamations about the universe using science that only a few dozen people in the world can fully comprehend, if that. You, and everyone else who believes in the supremacy of science, simply take their words on faith.

That is not true. I have a Physics degree. I have studies Physics for years and done research on it. I have looked at data and done the calculations. This is not taking anyone's word. This is not faith. This is being open to all interpretations and basing things on facts as they become known.

In true science, if a theory fails even once, it is forever thrown out. In faith and spirituality, things can fail a hundred times but all that means is "you havent been enlightened yet".

I will agree on one thing you are saying. I have though myself for a long time that modernists have tried so hard to try to get away from God that they have certainly tried to make some pretty crazy theories of multiverses and cosmic strings, etc that we don't have proof of. I think some of that is also a corruption. But the main line of science is not like that. We have real numbers. Real diagrams. Some of these people working on this are very clever and can explain this to you if you go talk to them.

In the end there MIGHT be some God like being. I am more sure that he would not be the Christian god even if he does exist. Regardless he is not interfering with your life. Never has, and never will. To live under his shadow is cowardice.