Why do people still believe in Jesus and Christianity?

[Into the Night]

Sick of your trolling.

Inversion fallacy.

[Into the Night]

You're an idiot. Waste of time reading your crap. blah blah fallacy.

So you can't define 'physical nature'. Didn't think you could.

[Into the Night]

Justice, courage, temperance, aesthetic beauty, benevolence, propriety, compassion, equanimity, charity, unconditional love, empathy.

All real things, all part of reality, and all beyond the physical reality of subatomic particles and energy.

Works for me.

[Into the Night]

So you died and came back?

If he died and came back, wouldn't that show there IS an afterlife?
If he died and didn't come back, who's using his account?

[Doc Dutch]

If he died and came back, wouldn't that show there IS an afterlife?
If he died and didn't come back, who's using his account?

His Ex. Just another reason to routinely change passwords. Pro-Tip 4a

[saltydancin]

how can something be "science" if it can only be framed by a "thought experiment"?......

Just as pseudoscience of a fabricated misnomer immaculate Jesus the Christ conception can only be framed by a thought experiment in pedophilia since it's beyond the laws of nature & nature's God.

[Into the Night]

Quantum mechanics blew Albert Einstein's mind, and if a mind as brilliant as his had trouble accepting it, I can see how it would literally seem like voodoo to persons of inferior intelligence, such as yourself

Lie. Quantum mechanics did not blow Einstein's mind. He helped invent it!

Matter cannot be created from nothing nor destroyed into nothing. Neither can energy. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of special relativity.

[Into the Night]

quantum physics is a faith statement that some folks pretend is science........but there are no facts involved in the field of study......no experimentation, no scientific theories......nothing but fantasy......

Quantum mechanics are science. They are all theories that are falsifiable. Science is not experiments nor a study or research.

[Into the Night]

You asked for a possible origin of the universe using physical principles.

I gave you one.

Quantuum fluctuations and virtual particles are known to result in matter springing out of nothing. Smarter people than me have made this observation.

No one knows how the universe originated. Seems to me that quantum fluctuations are just as plausible as the literal account in the book of Genesis. I personally think we do not even yet understand the physics of how the universe originated and maybe we never will. It may always be the realm of conjecture.

Matter does not spring out of nothing. It is not possible to create or destroy matter or energy.

[Cypress]

Its a simple thing........if the BS hypothesis concerning (wink, wink) Quantum Mechanics is a FACT OF SCIENCE.......just demonstrate this fact through the accepted method of SCIENCE. Show us the experiment that used the Scientific Method to demonstrate that Matter can be produced from nothing......this is what REAL SCIENCE requires, Empirical evidence that is Observable, Reproducible with consistency upon each application. Just produce Matter from nothing.........or not, as there is nothing FACTUAL about a hypothesis that dreams of producing matter from nothing. Clearly the seculars are propagating a false premise.....that false premise, "The First Law of Thermodynamics" does not exist. Thus, the false premise that Matter can pre-exist the ENERGY required to cause the effect of Matter. Even with the supposed theory of the BIG BANG..........Energy existed (from where did such energy come?). You can't answer that, thus the BS statement that Quantum Mechanics proves that matter can come from NOTHING. Yet....such as never been OBSERVED, Reproduced or consistency applied to demonstrate that knowledge as being FACTUAL.

In other words you are demonstrating FAITH....blind faith. It takes faith to believe that everything COULD HAVE came from nothing (BIG BANG) void of proof. It takes faith to believe that life came from non-living matter void of proof. It takes faith to believe that non-living matter can be created from NOTHING void of proof. It takes faith to believe that life and everything you see in this reality came from 2 simple elements....hydrogen and helium void of observed proof.

<snip>.

Fermi Lab - America's premier particle physics lab - states that matter-antimatter particles are constantly popping into and out of existence, in a quantuum foam state, and this has been confirmed scientifically:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...51#post3979451

Fermi Lab is an authoritative source, unlike anonymous mesaage board poster "Ralph"

[Into the Night]

Did it say some place in the bible that God is a physical object??

Essentially, yes. Jesus Christ is the son of God. He is a person, therefore God is also. God also speaks as a person to various people, including Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Isaac.

Are you a physical object?? Like a sock or clone??

Yes he is, just as you are.

THE PURPOSE OF RELIGION ISN'T TO DISPROVE SCIENCE

THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE ISN'T TO DISPROVE RELIGION

This is essentially correct. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It simply doesn't go where religion goes. Religion is an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that; otherwise known as the argument of faith. It serves no purpose other than to comfort those making that initial argument, through the use of non-scientific theories based on faith.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence. Religion does.

There are no proofs possible either in religion or in science, other than the falsification of a theory. No theory is ever proven True, whether scientific or otherwise. A falsifiable theory (a scientific theory) may be proven False. This utterly destroys the theory. A non-scientific theory can neither be proven True nor False. Such a theory can never be destroyed.

Example: The Theory of the Terracentric Universe (a theory of science at one time) was utterly destroyed by Galileo, when he showed that moons orbit Jupiter (thus blowing the whole idea of Earth being the center of everything right out of the water).
The Theory of Natural Selection (a theory of science at one time) was utterly destroyed by the application of logic, showing that such selection presupposes a variety to select from, yet the concept of selection tends to reduce variety. Today, it is a fallacy.

The Theory of Evolution (which states that more primitive life evolved into today's life forms) is not falsifiable. It is not testable. No one can go back to see what actually happened. It can neither be proven True nor False. It remains a circular argument. It has arguments extending from it. It is a religion.

The Theory of Creation (which states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence) is not falsifiable. It is not testable. No one can go back to see what actually happened. It can neither be proven True nor False. It remains a circular argument. It has arguments extending from it. It is also a religion.

Christianity is a religion. It does not conflict with science nor prove science. They are unrelated.
Newton's law of motion (F=mA) is a theory of science. It does not conflict with religion nor prove religion. They are unrelated.

It's not so much that either science nor religion has a purpose of any kind, it is simply that they are unrelated.

[Into the Night]

Werner Heisenberg did experiments.

So?

[Into the Night]

I accept your surrender, whore.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Contextomy fallacy. Insult fallacy.

[Into the Night]

It's fewer and fewer all the time but the reason people believe is because it improves their lives generally.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is unknown how many are Christians. The membership in many Christian churches is growing.

[Into the Night]

what did he do, mail letters to places outside the universe and count the replies he got?.......




https://www.aps.org/publications/aps...certain%20way.

the best he has ever come up with is a theory that since there is something happening that cannot be observed or tested it "proves" the existence of a place where things cannot be observed or tested......

Heisenberg did not create this theory. It has been around since Plato. The reason we remember Heisenberg's work today is that he showed how something that can be considered a 'particle' can also be a 'wave', and he showed by this method that you can know where a particle is, but not how fast it's moving, OR you can know how fast it's moving, but not where a particle is.

This is a theory of science. It is falsifiable. It is testable. So far, the theory remains intact. It has not yet been falsified.