Author Topic: The big bang theory is bs!  (Read 20512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #493 on: October 29, 2011, 04:09:11 PM »
A great escape from wishful thinking.

No, a great escape for the truth actually. But , to be honest, not such a great escape at all, if you ask me. Its a cheap escape...really.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #494 on: October 29, 2011, 04:10:08 PM »


We do not have to prove anything. If we come up with a better explanation, than atheists have, than we have a advantage. Thats all we pretend.
To say theists do not have any evidece for Gods existence is plain wrong. What differs us theists from atheists is just how we do interprete scientific evidence. All the matter is the interpretation.
And we have indeed many reasons to deduce God. While a common answer of atheists, when it comes to the hard questions, is the cheap " we don't know " escape. I am asking myself, what then science, philosophy, and religion serves for....... in reality this is just a escape for who does not want to aknowledge that the evidence points rationally and logically to God.


 

"We don't know" isn't cheap, it is always the beginning of rational thought, of investigation. When people just make up crap...like you and all theists do...that mean you will never, ever, find out the what is real.

For you to even call it cheap is so extremely intellectual dishonest to pretty show you live up to every negative stereotype of theists. Pretend you know the answers...facts be damned.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10853
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #495 on: October 29, 2011, 04:14:23 PM »
Why do you think it would be fortunate, if no God would exist ? If God does not exist, i can rape and kill a child, and say, that is perfectly right. And nobody can question my position, since no objective moral values exist.

Objective values do not exist in the first place. Whatever you think is wrong has been considered good by someone in some place.
PS: I suggest you see a psychiatrist or a police officer about that problem you have with morality. Atheists don't believe in any deity, yet we do not do what you seem to imply that should happen without a god.

If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did. I don't see any attractiveness of a scenario without a just God.

Newsflash - reality isn't fair. That's why we have laws to try and change our situation. EDIT: I suggest you also start working towards helping other people instead of just going all "god will punish them; I don't have to do a damned thing" on us.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 04:18:13 PM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #496 on: October 29, 2011, 05:01:09 PM »
Godexists:
Quote
If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did.
I've often wondered about this, Godexists. Perhaps you can help me.

Let's pretend that, in the final hours of his life, Hitler realized he'd been wrong about everything. Let's say he reverted to his original Catholicism, and sincerely confessed his sins to a priest, he repented and he received absolution. He was born again, and he sinned no more.

In which case, he would go to Heaven, right? Because Jesus died for his sins; Jesus paid the penalty, so he doesn't have to.

In which case, would you consider that fair?

Whereas the millions of ordinary Jews who Hitler horribly tortured and murdered go to Hell, where their torture continues forever.

Do you consider that fair?

Offline Klokinator

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +7/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • ^This is Molly. Btw, I'm an apatheist forever.
    • My game: Fire Emblem Phoenix Saga
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #497 on: October 29, 2011, 05:16:11 PM »
Quote
And we have indeed many reasons to deduce God. While a common answer of atheists, when it comes to the hard questions, is the cheap " we don't know " escape. I am asking myself, what then science, philosophy, and religion serves for....... in reality this is just a escape for who does not want to aknowledge that the evidence points rationally and logically to God.
Yeah, the cheap "I don't know" versus the not-cheap "I'm gonna say god did it" explanation.


Gotcha.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #498 on: October 29, 2011, 05:19:15 PM »
Present a highly probable scenario, where the universe came to be without a intellingent creator behind. Strong atheist indeed do make a claim, namely that most probably God does not exist.
Why do you believe the scientific evidence points toward a natural origin , of a self caused, or eternally existing universe in one form or the other ?
Exactly as science postulates things happened, because the way the universe is set up strongly argues against intelligence being responsible, and it certainly argues against that intelligence being responsible for life.

Quote from: Godexists
Why do you think it would be fortunate, if no God would exist ? If God does not exist, i can rape and kill a child, and say, that is perfectly right. And nobody can question my position, since no objective moral values exist. If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did. I don't see any attractiveness of a scenario without a just God.
If you were to actually rape and kill a child, you would go to prison and probably to death row.  That not only 'questions' your position, it outright contradicts it.  I think you're conflating atheism and anarchy, since the two have nothing at all to do with each other.  And you already threw out this idea that someone has to be punished for their crimes or else they 'escape' by dying.  Except that death is no kind of escape at all.

The Christian afterlife is neither just nor right either, because it declares that everyone is automatically guilty (and deserves eternal torment) by fiat, and furthermore, that the only way to avoid this fate is to believe that Jesus really did die to save people from it.  In other words, it doesn't matter what they did, so long as they believe, then they face only reward, not punishment.  In other words, if Hitler really truly believed that Jesus died for people's sins, even if it was at the very last moment of his life, then he would go to heaven by the rules of your theology.  And yet, the victims of his policy of extermination would go to hell if they died not believing, by those very same rules.  And you call this just?  You call this right?!

Quote from: Godexists
i am writing about historical science, not operational science.
You said this before; leaving aside what I said in response, the fact that something is referred to as historical science does not make it inherently any less valid than operational science.  Operational science is no less subject to interpretation than historical science, either.

Quote from: Godexists
I don't think its a position that can be justified, in front of all scientific, philosophic, and religious evidence we have on hand.
Philosophical conclusions aren't evidence.  Neither are religious experiences, since those only happen inside someone's head.  Evidence is something that can be independently observed and verified.

Quote from: Godexists
No, i say , because the universe had a beginning, is finely tuned to life, because the complex and specified information contained in the cell, because of sex, conscience, irreducible complexity, and existing morals, beside religious experiences, we can rationally deduce God as the best explanation for all these phenomenas, while naturalism has completely failed to deliver eloquent and highly compelling answers to all that. Its no wonder why atheists do not mention naturalism. Its worthless. What is left ? Nothing really.
You haven't proved that the universe had a beginning.  You've stated it.  And I've stated at least two separate ideas for how the universe could be cyclical rather than linear.  But none of them can be proven.

You haven't proved that someone fine-tuned the universe to be suitable for life.  Indeed, the fact that so much of the universe is basically empty space, irredeemably hostile to life of any sort[1], strongly contradicts your "fine-tuning" argument.  Never mind the fact that fine-tuning refers to what scientists do to make their theoretical models fit reality!

I will concede that DNA fits the definition of "complex and specific", but the fact that something is complex and specific does not prove that it was designed.  Indeed, the fact that so much of a DNA helix is basically junk suggests otherwise.

Biological sex proves nothing at all.  It merely facilitates reproduction.  There are plenty of species on the planet that get along just fine without biological sexes, and plenty of others that treat one sex as disposable.

The existence of the conscience proves nothing, because people aren't born with the sort of well-developed conscience that would be necessary for objective morality.  Indeed, the fact that the conscience develops as people gets older strongly supports a purely evolutionary source for it.

Irreducible complexity not only doesn't prove anything, it doesn't actually exist.  It is simply the presumption that a biological structure cannot function at all if it is reduced past a certain point.  There is no actual evidence for this, merely the statement that something like an eye can't have had any functions at all if you reduce it past a certain point.

And the existence of morality proves nothing, because it is something that people get from the society they live in.  If you have a society that claims that you have to throw someone in a volcano every so often in order to appease it and keep it from erupting and killing everyone, then someone who grows up in that society will think it is perfectly moral to sacrifice people in such a manner.  It is the same with everything else.

Naturalism provides perfectly logical and compelling reasons to explain these things[2] in a manner that does not require an intelligent creator.

Quote from: Godexists
The Big Band theory does lead actually directly to God.... But you must be bad informed..it seems....
No, it doesn't.  You have said that it does, but that doesn't mean anything.  I've given a couple of plausible hypotheses about this, which have just as much evidence as yours does.

Quote from: C
Now, in what way, is your god even remotely plausible? Really.
Quote from: Godexists
How is it naturalism ? REally..... what do you have actually on hand ? your answer of the Big Bang, and ET, is very superficial......
Naturalism explains things in a better, more consistent, and more logical manner than any belief that requires a deity active in human affairs.  And deism doesn't contradict naturalism.
 1. Even if bacteria can travel through space as spores, they're basically in stasis for the duration; they certainly don't do anything.
 2. except irreducible complexity, because it is a nonsensical belief used as an attempt to contradict evolution

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #499 on: October 29, 2011, 07:54:11 PM »
A great escape from wishful thinking.

No, a great escape for the truth actually. But , to be honest, not such a great escape at all, if you ask me. Its a cheap escape...really.

What does this even mean? Is English your first language?
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #500 on: October 29, 2011, 09:03:10 PM »
"We don't know" isn't cheap, it is always the beginning of rational thought, of investigation.

Your problem is only, that it is a little late to argue, that you are on the beginning of the investigaton. After all, we have centuries os scientific inquiry......And we know most probably our universe had a beginning. That is enough to rationally deduce there were a cause.

Quote
When people just make up crap...like you and all theists do...that mean you will never, ever, find out the what is real.

Neither, when you hold a agnostic standpoint, and never start your inquiry, despite all information that you have on hand.

Quote
For you to even call it cheap is so extremely intellectual dishonest

No, thats actually exactly what it is. There is no reason today, to held such a standpoint. You have ( i hope, at least ) , some brain cells, which you can use, to deduce some things based on the scientific knowledge we actually have.


Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #501 on: October 29, 2011, 09:11:01 PM »
we do not do what you seem to imply that should happen without a god

I don't imply anything. But the mere fact you do not kill little babies with pleasure, shows you have a moral innate conscience. If God would not exist, it would not exist. You would do anything, that you held morally objectible, and have no objection at all. And so neither others would. beside this, what is the difference between a human being, and a amoeba ? Essencially, we are made by the same elements, and there would not be any difference at all. If i kill a amoeba, or you, would not make any difference whatsoever. And it would not matter at all either, what we do today, if we live a morally high standard life, or if we are egoistic idiots. In the end, we will all die. So it matters only, how we live today, since tomorrow we will be dead. So the most stupid thing it is, to die for others. The best is to cheat, and care only for ourself, and get as much as we can from this life, others wellbeing doesnt matter.


Newsflash - reality isn't fair. That's why we have laws to try and change our situation.

That doesnt prevent Gaddhafis, Hitlers, Pol Pots, and others as bad as these to exist, and to do their evil things.


Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #502 on: October 29, 2011, 09:18:16 PM »
Godexists:
Quote
If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did.
I've often wondered about this, Godexists. Perhaps you can help me.

Let's pretend that, in the final hours of his life, Hitler realized he'd been wrong about everything. Let's say he reverted to his original Catholicism, and sincerely confessed his sins to a priest, he repented and he received absolution. He was born again, and he sinned no more.

In which case, he would go to Heaven, right? Because Jesus died for his sins; Jesus paid the penalty, so he doesn't have to.

In which case, would you consider that fair?

yes, because there was somebody that paid the deed of sin: Jesus Christ. He suffered for all evil that was done on earth. He was separated from the love of God father at the moment, when he hanged on the cross. He paid also the sins of Hitler. If Hitler would have accepted Jesus at his dead, he could be in heaven now. Jeffrey Dahmer, one of the most gruesome serial killers the u.s. knows of, who killed many young guys, and cannibalized them, confessed Jesus Christ in prison, and is now most probably in heaven, since he was killed in prison.

Quote
Whereas the millions of ordinary Jews who Hitler horribly tortured and murdered go to Hell, where their torture continues forever.

Many of them accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and are in heaven now.  They had their chance, as anyone else had. There is no difference, if they were tortured, or not, in regard of this matter.

Quote
Do you consider that fair?

God considers, that justice was done. That is what matters. Someone would have paid for the sins of Hitler. If he died, and there is no God, then whatever evil he had done, would never be charged.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #503 on: October 29, 2011, 09:50:13 PM »
Godexists:
Quote
yes, because there was somebody that paid the deed of sin: Jesus Christ. He suffered for all evil that was done on earth. He was separated from the love of God father at the moment, when he hanged on the cross. He paid also the sins of Hitler. If Hitler would have accepted Jesus at his dead [I assume you meant 'death' there], he could be in heaven now.
Right. According to your theology, Hitler would be in heaven if he had sincerely repented in his last hours.

So, how do you square that with your original statement (my bold):
Quote
If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did.
If Hitler had repented, he would have gone to Heaven; so he wouldn't have paid for what he did, would he?

Yet you say that "it's not right" that Hitler should not pay for what he did.

That's a contradiction.   
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 10:00:12 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #504 on: October 29, 2011, 09:52:40 PM »
Exactly as science postulates things happened, because the way the universe is set up strongly argues against intelligence being responsible, and it certainly argues against that intelligence being responsible for life.

You have not answered. What exactly evidences a natural origin ?

Quote
If you were to actually rape and kill a child, you would go to prison and probably to death row.  T

Here in brazil where i live, 90% of the homicides are unsolved crimes. That means, in most cases, the assassins will never be charged for what they did.


Quote
hat not only 'questions' your position, it outright contradicts it.  I think you're conflating atheism and anarchy, since the two have nothing at all to do with each other.  And you already threw out this idea that someone has to be punished for their crimes or else they 'escape' by dying.  Except that death is no kind of escape at all.

We all will die one day. Some lived a honrable life, did good things to others. But some were killers, thiefs, liars, betrayers, depraved in any kind. If they die, and no God exists, then they will never  be punished for their life. That is not just. Hitler will never be charged. That is not just.

Quote
The Christian afterlife is neither just nor right either, because it declares that everyone is automatically guilty (and deserves eternal torment)

Not so. We are guilty for the sins we commited. The bible says that nobody is capable of living a 100% pure and holy life. That does not mean however, that we are automatically guilty. I believe in a just God.



 
Quote
by fiat, and furthermore, that the only way to avoid this fate is to believe that Jesus really did die to save people from it.  In other words, it doesn't matter what they did, so long as they believe, then they face only reward, not punishment.  In other words, if Hitler really truly believed that Jesus died for people's sins, even if it was at the very last moment of his life, then he would go to heaven by the rules of your theology.

That is correct. In the same way, as the thief, that was crucified at the right side of the cross of Jesus . Christ said to him : today you will be in heaven with me.

 
Quote
And yet, the victims of his policy of extermination would go to hell if they died not believing, by those very same rules.  And you call this just?  You call this right?!

That these jews were his victims, has nothing to do with the fact, that they eventually face hell, or go to heaven.


Quote from: Godexists
i am writing about historical science, not operational science.
You said this before; leaving aside what I said in response, the fact that something is referred to as historical science does not make it inherently any less valid than operational science. 

Its not about validness. In operational science, you can prove something to be true. In historical sciences, for example, in regard of the age of the earth, we will never come to a conclusive point. The age will be always guesswork. So the validness of a viewpoint is irrelevant, here.

Quote
Operational science is no less subject to interpretation than historical science, either.

actually not. You can find a new substance, and after some experiments, you conclude its good to heal cancer. from that moment on, the doctor will prescribe this medicine to the patient, and if he takes it, it might heal his cancer. That is something objective, no need to base a conclusion on subjective interpretation.


Quote
Philosophical conclusions aren't evidence.

neither did i say so.

Quote
Neither are religious experiences, since those only happen inside someone's head.

well, a pastor, a friend of my wifes family, went two weeks before my wife knew and met me the first time, to her house and told her , that her future husband would appear in two weeks. He made a exact description of me. He told her, what car i had, where i came from, my appearance, my profession, and that i would marry her. After exact two weeks, we met each other, and one year later, we married. The same pastor went with me to my farm, and a employee of mine was there at the farm. The pastor looked at him, and told him : God shows me, in 2002 you had a terrible car accident, and your stomage was open from one side to the other, and you almost died. But because of the mercy of God, you are alive today, since he has a plan for your life.  He had never met the guy before. His sister looked shocked to him , and said : Ed, everything the pastor said is true. Both converted soon afterwards. I could go on and on and tell similar stories. I know of people which were clinically dead, and came back to life. Why should i doubt, God does miracles still today ?


Quote
You haven't proved that the universe had a beginning.

Neither do i need to.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

Quote
You cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)


 
Quote
You've stated it.  And I've stated at least two separate ideas for how the universe could be cyclical rather than linear.  But none of them can be proven.

And i've shown you why i cyclic universe is highly unlikely to exist , and therefore not a good answer.

Quote
You haven't proved that someone fine-tuned the universe to be suitable for life.

But the very fact that it is indeed finely tuned to life demands for a explanation. Any better one on hand, than God ?

Quote
Indeed, the fact that so much of the universe is basically empty space, irredeemably hostile to life of any sort[1], strongly contradicts your "fine-tuning" argument.
 1. Even if bacteria can travel through space as spores, they're basically in stasis for the duration; they certainly don't do anything.

Why does it ? it remains the fact, that the odds, that we would be here by random chance, is still so big, that its very unlikely , that it would ever happen by chance.

Quote
Never mind the fact that fine-tuning refers to what scientists do to make their theoretical models fit reality!

Not so. It shows, that if the parameters of the physcial values would be altered very slightly, life would not exist. That demands a explanation.


Quote
I will concede that DNA fits the definition of "complex and specific", but the fact that something is complex and specific does not prove that it was designed.

Wrong. That is actually a very rational and logic deduction based on empirical evidence. From chance, complex and specific codified information as contained in DNA cannot arise. Its simply impossible.

Quote
Indeed, the fact that so much of a DNA helix is basically junk suggests otherwise.

Today we know its actually not junk at all.......

Quote
Biological sex proves nothing at all.

it only evidences, that the natural ocurrence of evolution of sex is very unlikely. What survival advantage after all would sex have ? its the oposit . Unisexual reproduction is much more effective.

 
Quote
It merely facilitates reproduction.

the oposit is the case.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/reproduction.html#61y2JsTyb1EN

Quote
There are some basic problems concerning sexual reproduction that are still a puzzle to evolutionists and are very difficult to explain using any evolutionary models. In all sexually reproducing species, the genetic material ( DNA) that codes for the organism's design is stored in a pair of chromosomes. The process of sexual reproduction involves the formation of gametes (eggs and sperm) that involves the halving of chromosomal pairs. The subsequent recombination of gametes (and chromosomes) from different individuals is much more likely to break up combinations of good genesthan to form them. In effect, sexual reproduction dilutes mutations (both good and bad) so that they are usually not expressed in the offspring. This fact is an obvious problem for evolutionary theories that require the expression of genesin order for natural selection to operate.


Quote
The existence of the conscience proves nothing, because people aren't born with the sort of well-developed conscience that would be necessary for objective morality.

Well, the very fact that we are self aware is a uncrossable guld, according to Einstein.

http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins-gulf-can-evolution-cross-it/

Quote
On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms shown in figure 1, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

Quote
Irreducible complexity not only doesn't prove anything, it doesn't actually exist.

It seems you don't know what you are talking about.



 

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #505 on: October 29, 2011, 09:59:06 PM »
Godexists:
Quote
yes, because there was somebody that paid the deed of sin: Jesus Christ. He suffered for all evil that was done on earth. He was separated from the love of God father at the moment, when he hanged on the cross. He paid also the sins of Hitler. If Hitler would have accepted Jesus at his dead [I assume you meant 'death' there], he could be in heaven now.
Right. According to your theology, Hitler would be in heaven if he had sincerely repented in his last hours.

So, how do you square that with your original statement (my bold):
Quote
If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did.
If Hitler had repented, he would have gone to Heaven; so he wouldn't have paid for what he did, would he?

Yet you say it's not right that Hitler should not pay for what he did.

That's a contradiction.

He would have not paid for his sins, but there would be a substitute, Jesus christ. His sins therefore found punishment in his substitute.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #506 on: October 29, 2011, 10:09:27 PM »
Quote
He would have not paid for his sins
Indeed. Jesus paid for them, we're agreed on that.

Yet in your appeal to eternal justice, you said:
Quote
Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did.
So you're still contradicting yourself. You say that Hitler should be punished, or be made to pay, for his crimes, yet accept that he could have gone to Heaven unpunished, if he'd repented.



edit: and this:
Quote
Quote
Whereas the millions of ordinary Jews who Hitler horribly tortured and murdered go to Hell, where their torture continues forever.
Many of them accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and are in heaven now.
No, they were Jews, not Christians.
Quote
  They had their chance, as anyone else had. There is no difference, if they were tortured, or not, in regard of this matter.
Right. So you can lead a good life as a Jew, and end up being tortured to death by Hitler's regime, and then go to Hell.

Whereas Hitler can repent on his death-bed, and go to Heaven.

And this is justice? I don't think so.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 10:42:34 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #507 on: October 29, 2011, 11:28:46 PM »
we do not do what you seem to imply that should happen without a god

I don't imply anything. But the mere fact you do not kill little babies with pleasure, shows you have a moral innate conscience. If God would not exist, it would not exist. You would do anything, that you held morally objectible, and have no objection at all. And so neither others would. beside this, what is the difference between a human being, and a amoeba ? Essencially, we are made by the same elements, and there would not be any difference at all. If i kill a amoeba, or you, would not make any difference whatsoever. And it would not matter at all either, what we do today, if we live a morally high standard life, or if we are egoistic idiots. In the end, we will all die. So it matters only, how we live today, since tomorrow we will be dead. So the most stupid thing it is, to die for others. The best is to cheat, and care only for ourself, and get as much as we can from this life, others wellbeing doesnt matter.


Newsflash - reality isn't fair. That's why we have laws to try and change our situation.

That doesnt prevent Gaddhafis, Hitlers, Pol Pots, and others as bad as these to exist, and to do their evil things.
God commanded his followers to kill little babies

1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy  everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #508 on: October 29, 2011, 11:32:25 PM »
Godexists:
Quote
If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did.
I've often wondered about this, Godexists. Perhaps you can help me.

Let's pretend that, in the final hours of his life, Hitler realized he'd been wrong about everything. Let's say he reverted to his original Catholicism, and sincerely confessed his sins to a priest, he repented and he received absolution. He was born again, and he sinned no more.

In which case, he would go to Heaven, right? Because Jesus died for his sins; Jesus paid the penalty, so he doesn't have to.

In which case, would you consider that fair?

yes, because there was somebody that paid the deed of sin: Jesus Christ. He suffered for all evil that was done on earth. He was separated from the love of God father at the moment, when he hanged on the cross. He paid also the sins of Hitler. If Hitler would have accepted Jesus at his dead, he could be in heaven now. Jeffrey Dahmer, one of the most gruesome serial killers the u.s. knows of, who killed many young guys, and cannibalized them, confessed Jesus Christ in prison, and is now most probably in heaven, since he was killed in prison.

Quote
Whereas the millions of ordinary Jews who Hitler horribly tortured and murdered go to Hell, where their torture continues forever.

Many of them accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and are in heaven now.  They had their chance, as anyone else had. There is no difference, if they were tortured, or not, in regard of this matter.

Quote
Do you consider that fair?

God considers, that justice was done. That is what matters. Someone would have paid for the sins of Hitler. If he died, and there is no God, then whatever evil he had done, would never be charged.
Jesus suffered no more than a common criminal who was being put to death at that time suffered....where do you get the idea he suffered more than any of the executed people did in that time?

 And he gets a prize of "resurrection" unlke the criminals executed at the same time.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #509 on: October 30, 2011, 12:41:28 AM »
I don't imply anything. But the mere fact you do not kill little babies with pleasure, shows you have a moral innate conscience. If God would not exist, it would not exist. You would do anything, that you held morally objectible, and have no objection at all. And so neither others would.
The fact that you believe this does not make it true.  Even by your own theology, it is not correct.  God did not give humans consciences; they came from eating the apples, which bestowed the knowledge of right and wrong.  What God wanted, according to the Old Testament, was essentially thinking robots who would do what they were told, no questions asked.  It shows up over and over and over again throughout the Old Testament, whether it's eating the apples, being willing to sacrifice one's own children if told to, not turning back to watch the destruction of a town, or even touching the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from hitting the ground.  What gave humans consciences, again according to your own theology, was the snake that convinced Eve to eat the apples.

And yet you believe that we wouldn't have innate consciences if it weren't for God?  According to Genesis, God's the one who wanted humans to not be able to understand right and wrong for ourselves.  He ordered Adam and Eve to stay away from that tree.  He didn't want humans to have consciences.  He wanted us to be able to do anything without caring about whether it was right or wrong.  This is again according to your own theology.  So...maybe you should spend some time rethinking what you think you know.

Quote from: Godexists
beside this, what is the difference between a human being, and a amoeba ? Essencially, we are made by the same elements, and there would not be any difference at all. If i kill a amoeba, or you, would not make any difference whatsoever.
Everything is made of the same atomic elements.  So what?  Those same elements make up everything.  This is an utterly meaningless statement.  As far as people not having trouble killing other people without morality, you are aware that through most of history, most people had no real trouble slaughtering other people (even children and babies) outside of their extended tribe, right?  Such a thing should not happen with some universally-objective morality.

Quote from: Godexists
And it would not matter at all either, what we do today, if we live a morally high standard life, or if we are egoistic idiots. In the end, we will all die. So it matters only, how we live today, since tomorrow we will be dead. So the most stupid thing it is, to die for others. The best is to cheat, and care only for ourself, and get as much as we can from this life, others wellbeing doesnt matter.
It wouldn't matter at all?  Ridiculous.  Of course it matters.  Egotistical idiots don't do anything worth remembering, and they don't build anything either.  Did George Washington not matter, if there was no God?  Did Abraham Lincoln not matter, if there was no God?  Both of them, and countless others, saw injustice and did what they could to stop it.  And they are remembered and honored for it, by the people who live today.  They are remembered regardless of the existence of God.

Quote from: Godexists
That doesnt prevent Gaddhafis, Hitlers, Pol Pots, and others as bad as these to exist, and to do their evil things.
Yes, there are people like the ones you named and others who have done pretty horrible things on Earth.  There are also many who have done things which have helped to build and enhance civilization, and many who fought to stop the really bad ones.  It is those people to whom we owe a debt of honor for making the life we live today possible.

You have not answered. What exactly evidences a natural origin ?
The fact that an explanation which depends on something supernatural is enormously more complicated than one that does not, and simple explanations are much more likely to be true, per Occam's razorWiki.

Quote from: Godexists
Here in brazil where i live, 90% of the homicides are unsolved crimes. That means, in most cases, the assassins will never be charged for what they did.
In fairness, I was referring to my country, America.  Most people who commit crimes here are actually caught and punished for them.  The fact that many criminals get away with crimes in your country is tragic, but it is not irreparable.  And the way to fix things is not to imagine that God punishes people for crimes or sins, but to work to make justice better in your country, here and now.  America's justice system wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today if most people here were content to believe that God punishes criminals in the afterlife.

Quote from: Godexists
We all will die one day. Some lived a honrable life, did good things to others. But some were killers, thiefs, liars, betrayers, depraved in any kind. If they die, and no God exists, then they will never  be punished for their life. That is not just. Hitler will never be charged. That is not just.
It is far more important that Hitler's actions are seen for what they are, namely the despicable actions of a tyrant who sought a scapegoat to 'punish' for the wrongs that had been committed against his country, than it can ever be for Hitler himself to suffer any punishment.  Hitler is long dead, and most people learned the right lesson from his actions.  That is what matters, not some arbitrary desire for him to be condemned in an afterlife which nobody can ever be sure of.

Quote from: Godexists
Not so. We are guilty for the sins we commited. The bible says that nobody is capable of living a 100% pure and holy life. That does not mean however, that we are automatically guilty. I believe in a just God.
A just God who you believe gives forgiveness for all sins committed for the mere fact of believing in Jesus as savior?  That's in no way justice.  As an analogy, that would be like pardoning a criminal for any crime for the mere fact that they were really, really sorry for doing it and won't ever do it again.  And if we are not automatically guilty, why then does everyone deserve hell regardless of what they did or didn't do?  Don't feed me this line about how God just can't tolerate sins in the afterlife and has to toss everyone in hell unless they believe in Jesus as savior.  God's justice according to your belief is the equivalent of throwing everyone into this truly awful prison and keeping them there, except for the ones who plea bargain their way out by accepting Jesus as their savior.  How in any way can this be considered justice?

Quote from: Godexists
That is correct. In the same way, as the thief, that was crucified at the right side of the cross of Jesus . Christ said to him : today you will be in heaven with me.
Okay, then.  Hitler was a Christian.  He believed in Jesus as his savior.  He went to Heaven and got eternally rewarded.  He didn't pay for his crimes, because they were unconditionally forgiven (due to someone else 'paying' for them instead).  He got away with being one of the most murderous human beings who ever lived.  This is the 'justice' you cry out for, that people can do anything they want in life and get away without being punished for the crimes they actually committed as long as they believe in Jesus as savior.

Quote
And yet, the victims of his policy of extermination would go to hell if they died not believing, by those very same rules.  And you call this just?  You call this right?!
Quote from: Godexists
That these jews were his victims, has nothing to do with the fact, that they eventually face hell, or go to heaven.
It has everything to do with the fact that by your theology, the one who was responsible for all of their deaths would get away with it as long as he believed in Jesus as savior.  Yet all of those victims face nothing but eternal damnation for the mere fact of not believing in Jesus as savior.  The mass murderer gets an eternal reward in heaven, and his victims get to face eternal punishment in hell.

This.  Is.  Not.  Justice.

Quote from: Godexists
Its not about validness. In operational science, you can prove something to be true. In historical sciences, for example, in regard of the age of the earth, we will never come to a conclusive point. The age will be always guesswork. So the validness of a viewpoint is irrelevant, here.
Actually, you can't prove something to be true beyond any doubt in operational/experimental science either.  No matter how many times you perform an experiment under controlled conditions, you can't absolutely be sure that you won't come up with a different value the next time.  You can be reasonably sure that you will get the same result, but no science experiment has ever proven a result to be true.  So in effect, it is exactly the same as historical/analytical science; if you call the results of historical science guesswork, you also have to call the results of operational science guesswork, because the same methodology that is used in the one is used in the other as well.  So the validness of one's viewpoint is completely relevant in both cases.

Quote from: Godexists
actually not. You can find a new substance, and after some experiments, you conclude its good to heal cancer. from that moment on, the doctor will prescribe this medicine to the patient, and if he takes it, it might heal his cancer. That is something objective, no need to base a conclusion on subjective interpretation.
You are simply wrong here, as I stated above.  There are no experiments which are so conclusive and perfect that they can eliminate all doubt.  For example, polio vaccines were experimentally tested rather thoroughly before they were used on humans, but very rarely the vaccine actually gives polio to the person immunized despite all the exhaustive testing.  In fact, one of the two vaccines actually had a significantly higher chance of causing polio than the other, but this was missed initially.  Even with experimentation and controlled testing, it's still possible to get it wrong with operational science.

Quote from: Godexists
neither did i say so.
No, but you're implying it, since religion is a branch of philosophy.

Quote from: Godexists
well, a pastor, <snip>
So that's two examples.  I imagine you could probably cite a few more.  So, how many times did this pastor's predictions not come true?  Are you sure he didn't know of you, even if he didn't know you personally?  Are you sure that he hadn't done research on the person he came to visit and found out about the stomach surgery, when it happened, etc, or that someone didn't simply tell him about it beforehand?  Those are questions you need to ask and have real answers to before you can honestly claim that divine intervention was responsible.

Quote from: Godexists
I could go on and on and tell similar stories. I know of people which were clinically dead, and came back to life. Why should i doubt, God does miracles still today ?
Clinical death is when someone has stopped breathing and their heart isn't beating.  There's a technique, called cardiopulmonary resuscitationWiki which is used to help keep someone who is clinically dead from becoming really dead.  I strongly suspect that these people you know of were given CPR; I strongly doubt that they miraculously recovered on their own without being given any assistance whatsoever.  CPR is in no way a divine miracle.

Quote from: Godexists
Neither do i need to.
Yes, you most certainly do.  And citing a blog post at me doesn't cut it.  Blog posts are nothing more than someone's opinion, and they certainly are not held to any kind of standard of evidence, as opposed to, say, a research paper published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  And in any case, Gödel's incompleteness theorem most certainly doesn't prove your contention either.  All that the incompleteness theorem proves is that we have to make assumptions of certain things being true in order to be able to do anything.  It does not, as you claim, prove a beginning to the universe, or even suggest a beginning, because it's talking primarily about mathematical concepts.

Quote from: Godexists
And i've shown you why i cyclic universe is highly unlikely to exist , and therefore not a good answer.
No, you haven't.  You've made unsupported speculative claims that what you say is true.  But we've discovered things that are actually far weirder and more unlikely than a cyclical universe.  Personally, I find the idea of stars producing complex organic compounds to be far less likely than a cyclical universe, and moreover, scientists did not even believe it was theoretically possible before they observed it.  That is exactly why you can't say, "I believe this thing is the only possible explanation for something despite not having observed it".  If we don't have actual evidence, then we have to abide by Occam's razor, until we do have evidence.

Quote from: Godexists
But the very fact that it is indeed finely tuned to life demands for a explanation. Any better one on hand, than God ?
It isn't finely-tuned at all.  I've said this several times, and you keep going back and using the term, and throwing various opinions and unsubstantiated quotes at me to try to prove it.  Leaving that aside, it is far simpler to postulate that all of the various constants in the universe derive from just one constant which means it could easily have been simple chance of it coming out as it did; and given the nature of the universe as defined by those constants, there are so many galaxies and so many more stars that there are plenty of candidates for life-bearing worlds, even if 99.999% of all galaxies are irredeemably hostile to life of any sort. 

Quote from: Godexists
Why does it ? it remains the fact, that the odds, that we would be here by random chance, is still so big, that its very unlikely , that it would ever happen by chance.
You need to study probability before you make statements like that.  One of the most basic rules of probability is that even something that is highly improbable when taken in isolation is far more common when you have a wide enough sample.

Quote from: Godexists
Not so. It shows, that if the parameters of the physcial values would be altered very slightly, life would not exist. That demands a explanation.
So you're saying that scientists don't use fine-tuning to refer to the adjustment of their own theoretical models?[/sarcasm]  Look, the fact that some people say that the universe seems finely-tuned doesn't mean that it actually was.  What you need to understand is that if the universe is cyclical in nature, and if most of the physical constants are derivative, and if the value of the integral for those derivatives can change from cycle to cycle, then random chance could easily be responsible for those cycles which resulted in a situation where life was possible.  And the rest wouldn't matter from our perspective.

Quote from: Godexists
Wrong. That is actually a very rational and logic deduction based on empirical evidence. From chance, complex and specific codified information as contained in DNA cannot arise. Its simply impossible.
Go study probability before you start telling me that something can't happen by chance, or that it's impossible.  I saw a program that would roll 10 six-sided dice and roll them until all ten dice came up sixes.  At two rolls a second, it would take about a year on average.  That of course assumes that you have to have all ten dice come up as sixes simultaneously; if you can instead have the rolls be sequential, it takes less than a minute on average.  So, too, for DNA.  If it can come together sequentially, over time, then it isn't difficult at all to think of it coming about by pure chance.

Quote from: Godexists
Today we know its actually not junk at all.......
Yeah, introns can provide for a form of error-checking, and they provide a bulwark against harmful mutations.  That doesn't mean that they're any more useful than random pieces of e-mail that one might keep for years just in case under most circumstances.  As far as a cell is concerned, they don't make a difference in its ordinary existence, and that was what I was referring to.

Quote from: Godexists
it only evidences, that the natural ocurrence of evolution of sex is very unlikely. What survival advantage after all would sex have ? its the oposit . Unisexual reproduction is much more effective.
Well, for starters, combining two separate sets of DNA provides for a much greater diversity within a species than asexual reproduction.  And that diversity confers a much greater survival advantage than the minimal benefit of asexual reproduction, since it means that one vector can't as easily go through a population.

Quote from: Godexists
the oposit is the case.
No, it is not.  First off, that argument dramatically undercuts the idea of intelligent design, for the simple fact that an intelligent designer would want to ensure that designed self-reproducing organisms would select for the best possible combination and stay there.  In fact, one would be much more likely to find that designed organisms would not rely on purely random combinations at all.  Second, it is the very fact that sexual reproduction mitigates the effect of mutations and prevents them from being automatically expressed in offspring that argues for it being due to natural evolution.  I should have said that sex facilitates the reproduction of offspring that can survive despite potentially bad mutations in the chromosomes.

Quote from: Godexists
Well, the very fact that we are self aware is a uncrossable guld, according to Einstein.
You do know that Einstein was a physicist, right?  Even assuming this is an accurate statement by Einstein taken in context and not simply quote-mining[1], it's a little much to expect me or anyone to believe that Einstein had thoroughly studied the subject in the detail he would have needed to in order to be considered an expert on it.

Quote from: Godexists
It seems you don't know what you are talking about.
More likely you're just assuming the concept of irreducible complexity is accurate because it supports your belief.  And you have a lot of nerve accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about, given your apparent lack of knowledge about things such as probability, and your inability or unwillingness to support your own statement instead of simply declaring that I don't know anything about the subject.
 1. Which is questionable, because I could not find an original source for this statement.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10853
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #510 on: October 30, 2011, 12:59:58 AM »
I don't imply anything. But the mere fact you do not kill little babies with pleasure, shows you have a moral innate conscience.

What, you mean that thing called "empathy" that psychopaths don't have? Why didn't psychopaths get that "innate conscience" from your god?

If God would not exist, it would not exist.

To quote jaimehlers:

The fact that you believe this does not make it true.

You would do anything, that you held morally objectible, and have no objection at all.

That's an oxymoron. If I think something is objectionable and I am forced to do it or watch someone else do it, of course I will have objections.

beside this, what is the difference between a human being, and a amoeba ? Essencially, we are made by the same elements, and there would not be any difference at all. If i kill a amoeba, or you, would not make any difference whatsoever.

Speak for yourself. I don't think killing something else "just because" is right.

And it would not matter at all either, what we do today, if we live a morally high standard life, or if we are egoistic idiots. In the end, we will all die.

Because we all die in the end makes this life all the more important. If all we have to do is beg for our "sins"[1] to be forgiven and we get into heaven then we should all confess and have someone kill us, who would then confess and so on until there's only one person left on Earth who would die of old age.

It's not atheism that makes morality irrelevant - it's theism.

So it matters only, how we live today, since tomorrow we will be dead. So the most stupid thing it is, to die for others. The best is to cheat, and care only for ourself, and get as much as we can from this life, others wellbeing doesnt matter.

Disregarding the obvious fact that atheism is not amoral:
So what you're saying is that you're only interested in helping others because it makes you look good in front of your god? I.E.: That you're being an egocentric idiot?

That doesnt prevent Gaddhafis, Hitlers, Pol Pots, and others as bad as these to exist, and to do their evil things.

No, it doesn't. That's why I said "try".
 1. Whatever the hell those are.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 02:07:38 AM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #511 on: October 30, 2011, 02:02:07 AM »
"We don't know" isn't cheap, it is always the beginning of rational thought, of investigation.

Your problem is only, that it is a little late to argue, that you are on the beginning of the investigaton. After all, we have centuries os scientific inquiry......And we know most probably our universe had a beginning. That is enough to rationally deduce there were a cause.

A cause for time and the universe to begin as we know it, sure. You then assuming It had to be a transdimentional space wizard....And that transdimentional space wizard was correctly describe by a bunch of bronze age goat herders is...in a word...stupid.

It isn't late at all to say we are the beginning of the inquiry. Scientific Method only goes back 3 centuries at most. Written language 50 centuries, and mankind's existence about 2000 centuries. Yeah...it is at the beginning



Quote
For you to even call it cheap is so extremely intellectual dishonest

No, thats actually exactly what it is.


yes you calling it cheap is intellectually dishonest. You want to wrap yourself up it that calming ignorance that is the some ancient book of faerie tales holds all the answers and can't admit the cold hard truth that you don't know.

 
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #512 on: October 30, 2011, 02:47:30 AM »
Quote
C, I have to disagree, it's not a dodge, it's a weasel.  The way I see it, I went to a fair amount of time and trouble to write that post, and he dismissed it with one sentence and a link that he claims will answer me in detail.  Couldn't have taken him more than a couple minutes, tops.  I can't stop him from weaseling out of answering like that, but he knows that he doesn't have the chance of a snowball not melting in a furnace to convince me with that sort of thing.

Same thing Jaime >_> :P.

Quote
Present a highly probable scenario, where the universe came to be without a intellingent creator behind. Strong atheist indeed do make a claim, namely that most probably God does not exist.  Why do you believe the scientific evidence points toward a natural origin , of a self caused, or eternally existing universe in one form or the other ?

Guess why we "claim" that there is no Christian God in the first place? Because YOU claimed that God exists first and gave no proof of it. And what do you mean by "eternally existing"? Another good dodge.


Quote
Why do you think it would be fortunate, if no God would exist ? If God does not exist, i can rape and kill a child, and say, that is perfectly right.

I am not saying it would be fortunate if no god existed, I am saying it would be unfortunate for us if such a disgusting god Christianity has made up did exist.

You are morally bankrupt for a Christian. Slightly repulsive, but not as bad as what I've seen of others. I don't really care if you live in Brazil or not, the fact that you need an imaginary friend to desist from raping and killing children is a problem everywhere. You are straight out admitting that you'd commit crimes if Christianity wasn't there to indoctrinate you at birth. Fix your shit.

Quote
And nobody can question my position, since no objective moral values exist. If God does not exist, the worst criminal might never be charged for his crimes, when he dies. That is not just. Its not right. Its not right that Hitler does not have to pay for what he did. I don't see any attractiveness of a scenario without a just God.

No "objective moral values" he says. No good world without a god he says. Nobody can question your position he says. You say that around 90% of homicides in your country of Brazil go unanswered or lead ultimately to nowhere. Where is your God in that? Where is your God for the starving in Somalia, Niger and other regions? Where was your God in the past dozen genocides carried out by his lovely Christians? You're humiliating yourself. Stop please. That's supposed to be my job.  &)

Quote
i am writing about historical science, not operational science.

"Historical science"? What the hell is that? Paleontology which also answers questions about the past scientifically? Good one.

Quote
I don't think its a position that can be justified, in front of all scientific, philosophic, and religious evidence we have on hand.

-_-

Quote
No, i say , because the universe had a beginning, is finely tuned to life,

The universe is not "finely tuned to life", there are hazards everywhere. On our planet alone, there are thousands of natural dangers that can kill a large population of humans anywhere anytime.

Quote
because the complex and specified information contained in the cell, because of sex, conscience, irreducible complexity, and existing morals, beside religious experiences, we can rationally deduce God as the best explanation for all these phenomenas, while naturalism has completely failed to deliver eloquent and highly compelling answers to all that. Its no wonder why atheists do not mention naturalism. Its worthless. What is left ? Nothing really.

So just because you don't understand anything, you just attribute it to your imaginary friend. Perfect! I think we can all note that this has been a waste of time.


Quote
The Big Band theory does lead actually directly to God.... But you must be bad informed..it seems....

..What?

Quote
How is it naturalism ? REally..... what do you have actually on hand ? your answer of the Big Bang, and ET, is very superficial......

Your answer concerning a god that would get pissed off at humans eating fruit, building towers and not impregnating each others' in-laws after their spouses die is more than "superficial", it's idiotic.

I will give you a present, it's from Wikipedia:

"Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical viewpoint that the natural universe and its natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe that we know. Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically.

Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles.These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This sense of naturalism is usually referred to as metaphysical naturalism or philosophical naturalism."

The bolded is what you've been going against. A whole lot better than "my god did it!"
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 02:55:55 AM by C »
The Second C

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #513 on: October 30, 2011, 02:55:38 AM »
Quote
well, a pastor, a friend of my wifes family, went two weeks before my wife knew and met me the first time, to her house and told her , that her future husband would appear in two weeks. He made a exact description of me. He told her, what car i had, where i came from, my appearance, my profession, and that i would marry her. After exact two weeks, we met each other, and one year later, we married. The same pastor went with me to my farm, and a employee of mine was there at the farm. The pastor looked at him, and told him : God shows me, in 2002 you had a terrible car accident, and your stomage was open from one side to the other, and you almost died. But because of the mercy of God, you are alive today, since he has a plan for your life.  He had never met the guy before. His sister looked shocked to him , and said : Ed, everything the pastor said is true. Both converted soon afterwards. I could go on and on and tell similar stories. I know of people which were clinically dead, and came back to life. Why should i doubt, God does miracles still today ?

SIGH. Looks like God cares more about impressing gullible people through pastors than actually saving humans. Guess who saves the people who are clinically dead? Not God. Guess whose divine plan makes prayer useless? God.
The Second C

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #514 on: October 30, 2011, 03:19:15 AM »
From GodExists' Website Link: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

Quote
In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.
Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

Gödel has two Incompleteness Theorems that pertain to mathematical logic, and NEITHER says the bolded. Good website, more pile of lies and false information.

But I will give you the benefit of the do- oh wait, what's this? Information and more pages about/from the website's owner? Perry Marshall? Who's that?

Oh well, here's what the idiot says:

Quote
Information Theory and DNA are the strongest argument against Atheism - because the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain the existence of information. "

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
So we know that DNA was designed.
A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.

Can this be refuted? Yes, if any exceptions to this can be found. But a lot of people have tried to refute it, unsuccessfully. It's an airtight inductive proof that life was designed by a mind. If anyone can find a flaw in the logic, it fails. Until that happens, it stands. It's just like the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity, or conservation of matter and energy. If anyone can find an exception, the law fails to hold.

This leads to what I call The Atheist's Riddle:

“Show me a language that does not come from a mind.”

It's so simple and a child can understand, but so complex no atheist can solve.

My riddle: How stupid can theists get?

The nonsense this guy spews out is akin to your nonsense GodExists! Your significant other by the way is the same idiot who said the following in an interview:

Quote
I have a friend who says that his purpose in life is to make God laugh. That’s his little thing. I’m quite sure God has a sense of humor. I see it every day.

Humor?



Check.

Quote
You could read the whole thing, probably, in about an hour. But that’s not how you read it.

There are 31 chapters so my favorite way to read it is to read one chapter a day. If today is the 21st then you read the 21st chapter. And it has something for you.

..Proverbs is a great place to start.

Proverbs
1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
1:27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

Well shit, that answers a lot of questions!
The Second C

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #515 on: October 30, 2011, 05:17:55 AM »
Right. So you can lead a good life as a Jew, and end up being tortured to death by Hitler's regime, and then go to Hell.

Whereas Hitler can repent on his death-bed, and go to Heaven.

They could repent and accept Jesus Christ as well. As Jews. The offer of forgiveness is for everybody, also, and actually specially for jews, since they are the elected Volk of God.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #516 on: October 30, 2011, 05:19:09 AM »
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy  everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

Yes. do you know why God commanded the Jews to do so ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #517 on: October 30, 2011, 05:20:00 AM »
Jesus suffered no more than a common criminal who was being put to death at that time suffered....

How do you know ?

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #518 on: October 30, 2011, 05:24:12 AM »
Quote
They could repent and accept Jesus Christ as well. As Jews. The offer of forgiveness is for everybody, also, and actually specially for jews, since they are the elected Volk of God.



Quote
Yes. do you know why God commanded the Jews to do so ?

Because he's a dick?

Quote
How do you know ?

The fact that there were supposedly 2 other criminals who were being crucified with him is how we know. He was crucified. A little spear thrust into the side. The End.
The Second C

Online Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #519 on: October 30, 2011, 06:00:39 AM »
They could repent and accept Jesus Christ as well. As Jews. The offer of forgiveness is for everybody, also, and actually specially for jews, since they are the elected Volk of God.

So............. god like that boss who has a hundred subordinates and brings his favorite employee home to met his daughter, but that employee thinks she's a butterface with a large ass and bushy eye-brows and no tits and he wants nothing to do with her, but will remain loyal to the company anyways, but the father is like, "ah, your fired for not dating my daughter! Get out of my site. Sure, you do the best work out of everyone at the company, but if you don't date my daughter your going to lose all the benefits the company has to provide for you. To keep the benefits and your job date my precious little girl. "

God's a horrible boss.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #520 on: October 30, 2011, 08:45:56 AM »
I don't imply anything. But the mere fact you do not kill little babies with pleasure, shows you have a moral innate conscience. If God would not exist, it would not exist. You would do anything, that you held morally objectible, and have no objection at all. And so neither others would.
The fact that you believe this does not make it true.

Then bring a strong reason, why we, humans, do have a conscience, while all animal world has not, but survives, as we do. To have a conscience is not necessary for survival.

 
Quote
Even by your own theology, it is not correct.  God did not give humans consciences; they came from eating the apples, which bestowed the knowledge of right and wrong.  What God wanted, according to the Old Testament, was essentially thinking robots who would do what they were told, no questions asked.

If he wanted robots, he could have created them. He created beings with free will, and gave them the oportunity to obey him, or not.


Quote
   What gave humans consciences, again according to your own theology, was the snake that convinced Eve to eat the apples.

They had already a conscience, but it wake up only, after they sinned.

Quote
And yet you believe that we wouldn't have innate consciences if it weren't for God?  According to Genesis, God's the one who wanted humans to not be able to understand right and wrong for ourselves.

But they did understand it, since God told them, it was wrong to eat from the three of knowledge, and if they would eat from it, they would die.


 
Quote
He ordered Adam and Eve to stay away from that tree.  He didn't want humans to have consciences.  He wanted us to be able to do anything without caring about whether it was right or wrong
.

non sequitur. he did not order them to stay away from the tree, but not to eat from its fruit. Of course he wanted us to do the right thing, which was not to eat from the tree.

 

Quote from: Godexists
Everything is made of the same atomic elements.  So what?  Those same elements make up everything.  This is an utterly meaningless statement.

Do you live following this line of thougt ? that a human being is not worth more than a amoeba ?


 
Quote
As far as people not having trouble killing other people without morality, you are aware that through most of history, most people had no real trouble slaughtering other people (even children and babies) outside of their extended tribe, right?  Such a thing should not happen with some universally-objective morality.

The conscience of morals does not prevent humans to to bad things. Its just a signal of alert, that something is wrong.

Quote from: Godexists
It wouldn't matter at all?  Ridiculous.  Of course it matters.

following your line of reasong, it does actually not. One day we will be all dead, and then it will not make any difference at all. We will not be charged.

Quote
Egotistical idiots don't do anything worth remembering, and they don't build anything either.

why should someone want to be remembered ? what difference does it make ? one day, humanity, and our world will not exist anymore. So what we do today, makes no difference at all in the end.


 
Quote
Did George Washington not matter, if there was no God?  Did Abraham Lincoln not matter, if there was no God?  Both of them, and countless others, saw injustice and did what they could to stop it.  And they are remembered and honored for it, by the people who live today.  They are remembered regardless of the existence of God.

that will past. And it does not any good to them. They are dead.

Quote from: Godexists
civilization, and many who fought to stop the really bad ones.  It is those people to whom we owe a debt of honor for making the life we live today possible.

they don't care if we honor them or not. They are dead. And so we will be one day. In the end, if god does not exist,  it makes no difference at all, what we did on earth.

The fact that an explanation which depends on something supernatural is enormously more complicated than one that does not

You rely again on a negative. God that ? You are not able to present a case of its own ? And : might explain, why God is a complicated explanation ?


Quote
, and simple explanations are much more likely to be true, per Occam's razorWiki.

might wanna present yours ? so far, you have not.

Quote from: Godexists
Here in brazil where i live, 90% of the homicides are unsolved crimes. That means, in most cases, the assassins will never be charged for what they did.
In fairness, I was referring to my country, America.  Most people who commit crimes here are actually caught and punished for them.  The fact that many criminals get away with crimes in your country is tragic, but it is not irreparable.

well, if in fact these people will never been charged, its indeed irreparable. Unjustice is done.

Quote
And the way to fix things is not to imagine that God punishes people for crimes or sins, but to work to make justice better in your country, here and now.

that does not change the fact, that if God does not exist, Hitler and many others like him will never be charged for his crimes. Do you think that is just ?


Quote from: Godexists
It is far more important that Hitler's actions are seen for what they are, namely the despicable actions of a tyrant who sought a scapegoat to 'punish' for the wrongs that had been committed against his country, than it can ever be for Hitler himself to suffer any punishment. 

Its also important, that justice is done. If God does not exist, evil in the end, wins.


Quote from: Godexists
  And if we are not automatically guilty, why then does everyone deserve hell regardless of what they did or didn't do?

where does the bible say that ?


 
Quote
Don't feed me this line about how God just can't tolerate sins in the afterlife and has to toss everyone in hell unless they believe in Jesus as savior.  God's justice according to your belief is the equivalent of throwing everyone into this truly awful prison and keeping them there, except for the ones who plea bargain their way out by accepting Jesus as their savior.  How in any way can this be considered justice?

its not just about begging bargain. A truly born again christian repents from his sins, and begins a new life, where the will  of God is parameter, and is followed.

Quote from: Godexists
Okay, then.  Hitler was a Christian.  He believed in Jesus as his savior.

If he were a true christian, he would have never commited the atrocities he did.

Quote
It has everything to do with the fact that by your theology, the one who was responsible for all of their deaths would get away with it as long as he believed in Jesus as savior.  Yet all of those victims face nothing but eternal damnation for the mere fact of not believing in Jesus as savior.  The mass murderer gets an eternal reward in heaven, and his victims get to face eternal punishment in hell

that is a real possibility.

Quote
This.  Is.  Not.  Justice.

it would not be just, if Jesus sacrifice was not real, and would have no effect. But Jesus suffering was real, and since he never sinned, he was capable of taking upon him the sin of all humanity, and pay its price for it, which was his death.

Quote from: Godexists
Actually, you can't prove something to be true beyond any doubt in operational/experimental science either.  No matter how many times you perform an experiment under controlled conditions, you can't absolutely be sure that you won't come up with a different value the next time.

what is relevant however, is, that if you perform a experiment one hundred times, and the result is always the same, then you can confidently deduce something about it, and use it for certain things. If you follow your line of reasoning, you will end with absolute nihilism, where you never will be able to know something. Maibe i am a robot, that writes here, not a human being. How do you know ? In historical science, you cannot test the age of the earth....



Quote from: Godexists
neither did i say so.
No, but you're implying it, since religion is a branch of philosophy.

Quote from: Godexists
So, how many times did this pastor's predictions not come true?

I don't know. All i know that this one happened EXACTLY the way he predicted.


 
Quote
Are you sure he didn't know of you

absolutely. I never met him before. I actually did not even live yet in the city, where i met my wife. I was completely new in town.


 
Quote
Are you sure that he hadn't done research on the person he came to visit and found out about the stomach surgery

He did not even know where my farm was, even less, who my worker was.......

Quote
, when it happened, etc, or that someone didn't simply tell him about it beforehand?

impossible.

 
Quote
Those are questions you need to ask and have real answers to before you can honestly claim that divine intervention was responsible.

i am not naiv on that......but you will doubt of course, since it does not fit your agenda.......



Quote from: Godexists
Yes, you most certainly do.  And citing a blog post at me doesn't cut it.  Blog posts are nothing more than someone's opinion, and they certainly are not held to any kind of standard of evidence

we are talking about religious issues, where the only thing we can discuss is interpretation. nothing more.

Quote
, as opposed to, say, a research paper published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  And in any case, Gödel's incompleteness theorem most certainly doesn't prove your contention either.  All that the incompleteness theorem proves is that we have to make assumptions of certain things being true in order to be able to do anything.  It does not, as you claim, prove a beginning to the universe, or even suggest a beginning, because it's talking primarily about mathematical concepts.

neither did i claim that. But since you agree , that all we believe, is based on assumptions, you neither can claim, that you stick to a standpoint only, after you have absolute proofs on hand.

Quote from: Godexists
And i've shown you why i cyclic universe is highly unlikely to exist , and therefore not a good answer.
No, you haven't.

Wrong. Actually i have. You just don't agree with me.

Quote
You've made unsupported speculative claims that what you say is true.

nope. I have made a claim, which is supported by science.



 
Quote
But we've discovered things that are actually far weirder and more unlikely than a cyclical universe.  Personally, I find the idea of stars producing complex organic compounds to be far less likely than a cyclical universe

did stars exist beyond our univese ?

Quote
, and moreover, scientists did not even believe it was theoretically possible before they observed it.  That is exactly why you can't say, "I believe this thing is the only possible explanation for something despite not having observed it".  If we don't have actual evidence, then we have to abide by Occam's razor, until we do have evidence.

which is which explanation, you refere to ?

Quote from: Godexists
But the very fact that it is indeed finely tuned to life demands for a explanation. Any better one on hand, than God ?
It isn't finely-tuned at all.

if you want to troll, now, go ahead.....

 
Quote
I've said this several times, and you keep going back and using the term, and throwing various opinions and unsubstantiated quotes at me to try to prove it.

If you want to discard scientific evidence, go ahead. dawkins, hawking, davies, stenger, and many more disagree with you......



 
Quote
Leaving that aside, it is far simpler to postulate that all of the various constants in the universe derive from just one constant which means it could easily have been simple chance of it coming out as it did;

any evidence, or you just speculate ?

 
Quote
and given the nature of the universe as defined by those constants, there are so many galaxies and so many more stars that there are plenty of candidates for life-bearing worlds, even if 99.999% of all galaxies are irredeemably hostile to life of any sort.


the chance of a other life permitting plante has been calculated, and its beyond a reasonable number. Its a almost infinitely small chance, this to happen, that it can be discarded as a valid or probable hypotheses.

Quote from: Godexists
Why does it ? it remains the fact, that the odds, that we would be here by random chance, is still so big, that its very unlikely , that it would ever happen by chance.
You need to study probability before you make statements like that.

Its said that a probability less than one to 10^50 is most likely to never happen.


Quote from: Godexists
Not so. It shows, that if the parameters of the physcial values would be altered very slightly, life would not exist. That demands a explanation.
So you're saying that scientists don't use fine-tuning to refer to the adjustment of their own theoretical models?[/sarcasm]

the fine tune argument has nothing to do with that.

Quote
Look, the fact that some people say that the universe seems finely-tuned doesn't mean that it actually was.

So you should doubt about everything then. Even about the fact, that you eventually exist. you cannot prove that. You might be a hallucination.

Quote
What you need to understand is that if the universe is cyclical in nature, and if most of the physical constants are derivative, and if the value of the integral for those derivatives can change from cycle to cycle, then random chance could easily be responsible for those cycles which resulted in a situation where life was possible.  And the rest wouldn't matter from our perspective.

even lets say the universe is cyclical. It does not eliminate the fact that it has to have a beginning. So you throw the quest just further back.

Quote from: Godexists
Go study probability before you start telling me that something can't happen by chance, or that it's impossible.

done that already.

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/20-typing.htm

Quote
Just how logical is this monkey story? In simple terms, if every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed) they could not do the job. Even if they typed non-stop for 30 billion years there would not be the slightest chance that one of them would type even a single five word sentence of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place. The probability for them to achieve this is less than one chance in a trillion.

Richard Dawkins also appeals to the monkeys to convince his readers that evolution by natural selection is plausible. He believes that a thousand such monkeys could type Shakespeare's sentence, "Methinks it is like a weasel." However, the probability of them typing this six-word sentence (including spaces), is one chance in 1039.

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).

You have bad cards on hand.... really.

and it gets even worse. A cell is irreducibly complex.

Popper, K.R., Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science; in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974.

the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.


Quote
You do know that Einstein was a physicist, right?  Even assuming this is an accurate statement by Einstein taken in context and not simply quote-mining[1], it's a little much to expect me or anyone to believe that Einstein had thoroughly studied the subject in the detail he would have needed to in order to be considered an expert on it.
 1. Which is questionable, because I could not find an original source for this statement.

You don't need to rely on a expert to understand, that from apples, never strawberries will be produced. They are after all quit different. So is information and conscience. Information can be destroid. Matter cannot.

furthermore :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t70-how-to-explain-the-evolution-of-human-consciousness-and-self-awareness

Quote
Of course Darwinians think that consciousness came into being via random mutation and selection. But this is not because we have any specific ideas about the evolution of consciousness per se. Rather, it's because we believe the theory, and we are using it deductively. All biological traits came into being via random mutation and selection. Consciousness is a biological trait. QED.
Science has little understanding of what consciousness is, how it works, or what it is for. So it seems unfair to expect Darwinians to have any specific theory of how it evolved.

Quote from: Godexists
It seems you don't know what you are talking about.
More likely you're just assuming the concept of irreducible complexity is accurate because it supports your belief.

no, because there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up this claim. Its actually the atheists, that assume its a false concept, because they do not want it to be true.

Quote
And you have a lot of nerve accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about, given your apparent lack of knowledge about things such as probability

no kidding....kkkkk

well , you have actually shown, that you think, random chance is a better explanation than god, to explain our existece. I honestly admire your enormous faith in chance.
Just for curiosity : would you bet a thousand dollars, that odds bigger than one to 10^50 could be considered as a real possibility to win ?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 08:52:34 AM by Godexists »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10853
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #521 on: October 30, 2011, 08:49:19 AM »
<snip>

Regarding A&E: They were perfect. They could only do the right thing. Eve chose to listen to the snake, and Adam chose to listen to her. Your god told them not to do it.
So, who was doing the wrong thing here?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.