If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

it doesn't need to be explained!

You don't need to think about or explain anything. You can dedicate your life to drugs, alcohol, and porn.

 

[Monad Portal]

You don't need to think about or explain anything. You can dedicate your life to drugs, alcohol, and porn.

religion is not about explaining the origin of math,


you're a fucking idiot trying to actually destroy any value of religion or science.

you're a retarded hack.

 

[Cypress]

I don't believe something came from nothing.
Not being able to explain something doesn't mean a miracle occurred.
Acknowledging that I don't know something, and science has yet to explain it, isn't a cop out. What's silly is invoking extraterrestrial beings because you're so desperate to explain something.

But that's not at all what you're saying.
You're saying on the one hand that you don't know what caused the universe and what caused it's rational mathematical scaffolding. But then on the other hand you are absolutely certain there was no external rational agency, entity, or force involved.

That is logically incoherent and unintelligible. You can't assert ignorance and certainty at the same time.

Finely tuned is your opinion.

Your science background is extremely limited, isn't it?

Any college level cosmology class you could take from a reputable astrophysicist will discuss the fine tuning of the universe. It's one of the biggest mysteries in cosmology and has inspired attempts (speculations) at naturalistic explanations.

 

[Cypress]

religion is not about explaining the origin of math!!!
you're a fucking idiot!!!!

I'm not discussing religion. Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism are irrelevant to any of the points I made.

I'm discussing cosmology and the physical state of the universe.

If anything, what I wrote might be consistent with some kind of pantheism or deism which are not religions or religious organizations. They are a sort of philosophy.

 

[Monad Portal]

I'm not discussing religion. Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism are irrelevant to any of the points I made.

I'm discussing cosmology and the physical state of the universe.

that's physics.

If anything, what I wrote might be consistent with some kind of pantheism or deism which are not religions or religious organizations. They are a sort of philosophy.

no it isn't,

unless you're introducing so much speculation its not science anymore.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't need to think about or explain anything. You can dedicate your life to drugs, alcohol, and porn.

You can, but you won't live long that way.

 

[Into the Night]

But that's not at all what you're saying.

He never claimed that something came from nothing here, although he HAS claimed that energy comes from nothing in the past in one of his religions.

You're saying on the one hand that you don't know what caused the universe and what caused it's rational mathematical scaffolding.

Redefinition fallacies (Universe<->mathematics, mathematics<->scaffold, rational<->mathematics). Mathematics did not create the Universe (if, indeed, it was ever created). The Universe is unorganized.

But then on the other hand you are absolutely certain there was no external rational agency, entity, or force involved.

He never said any such thing. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Mantra 40a.

That is logically incoherent and unintelligible. You can't assert ignorance and certainty at the same time.

Yet this is exactly what you are trying to do.

Your science background is extremely limited, isn't it?

No science is being discussed here. Inversion fallacy.

Any college level cosmology class you could take from a reputable astrophysicist will discuss the fine tuning of the universe.

The Universe is not a class, college, university, book, paper, website, degree, license, or any other sanctification.
The Universe is not 'tuned'. The Universe is unorganized.

It's one of the biggest mysteries in cosmology and has inspired attempts (speculations) at naturalistic explanations.

Cosmology is not any branch of science. It is a religion. You are a fundamentalist in this religion.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not discussing religion.

Lie.

Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism are irrelevant to any of the points I made.

Strawman fallacies.

I'm discussing cosmology and the physical state of the universe.

A religion.

If anything, what I wrote might be consistent with some kind of pantheism or deism which are not religions or religious organizations.

It is a religion. Word games won't help you.

They are a sort of philosophy.

Redefinition fallacy. Philosophy is not religion.

 

[Into the Night]

that's physics.

Cosmology is not physics. It is religion.

no it isn't,

unless you're introducing so much speculation its not science anymore.

He is a fundamentalist in that religion.

 

[Monad Portal]

Cosmology is not physics. It is religion.

He is a fundamentalist in that religion.

nah.

 

[ZenMode]

But that's not at all what you're saying.
You're saying on the one hand that you don't know what caused the universe and what caused it's rational mathematical scaffolding. But then on the other hand you are absolutely certain there was no external rational agency, entity, or force involved.

I'm certain that I don't know the answer to all questions, but that isn't a license to create an answer.

There are lots of things that man didn't know, lightning, disease, etc, that he used God to answer ...and he was wrong.

That is logically incoherent and unintelligible. You can't assert ignorance and certainty at the same time.

Your science background is extremely limited, isn't it?

Any college level cosmology class you could take from a reputable astrophysicist will discuss the fine tuning of the universe. It's one of the biggest mysteries in cosmology and has inspired attempts (speculations) at naturalistic explanations.

Again, retroactively explaining isn't the same as "it was designed that way".

 

[Cypress]

He never claimed that something came from nothing here, although he HAS claimed that energy comes from nothing in the past in one of his religions.

Redefinition fallacies (Universe<->mathematics, mathematics<->scaffold, rational<->mathematics). Mathematics did not create the Universe (if, indeed, it was ever created). The Universe is unorganized.

He never said any such thing. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Mantra 40a.

Yet this is exactly what you are trying to do.

No science is being discussed here. Inversion fallacy.

The Universe is not a class, college, university, book, paper, website, degree, license, or any other sanctification.
The Universe is not 'tuned'. The Universe is unorganized.


Cosmology is not any branch of science. It is a religion. You are a fundamentalist in this religion.

It always tells me I am on the right track when posters of the quality of Into the Night, IBDumbass, and Monad are following me around saying I am wrong.

 

[Cypress]

I'm certain that I don't know the answer to all questions, but that isn't a license to create an answer.

So you are agnostic,
unless you want to revert to the self contradicting claim that you are ignorant of the causes of the universe, but then you are absolutely certain an external rational agency is not involved.

 

[ZenMode]

So you are agnostic,
unless you want to revert to the self contradicting claim that you are ignorant of the causes of the universe, but then you are absolutely certain an external rational agency is not involved.

I'm not agnostic. The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them. It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".

 

[Cypress]

that's physics!

So what? Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, even Einstein to an extent thought physics and cosmology pointed to something divine inherent in the universe.

You obviously don't want physics and science to be part of the dialog because you don't understand physics and never took a class in it.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not agnostic. The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them. It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".

Then you are back to making the self contradictory and self refuting argument of ignorance and certainty simultaneously about the same concept.

 

[Margot]

First there was YHWH ,he created other Spirits, eventually a third supported Satan overthrowing YHWH.When Satan entered YHWH's space it caused the Big Bang and creation of the "Angel who has power over fire" Michael.

 

[Into the Night]

It always tells me I am on the right track when posters of the quality of Into the Night, IBDumbass, and Monad are following me around saying I am wrong.

You aren't on a track. Buzzwords are not a conversation nor an argument. Bulverism fallacy. Attempted proof by bulverism.

 

[Into the Night]

So you are agnostic,
unless you want to revert to the self contradicting claim that you are ignorant of the causes of the universe, but then you are absolutely certain an external rational agency is not involved.

The Universe is not a 'cause'. It is not possible to have an 'outside' of the Universe. The Universe has no known boundary.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not agnostic.

Correct. You are a fundamentalist.

The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them.

Evidence is not a quantity. You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".

Buzzword fallacy.