PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Sounds like Imperialism. Imperialism is bad, sir. Also, if God really wanted the U.S. to lead the world, it would have happened.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sounds like Imperialism. Imperialism is bad, sir. Also, if God really wanted the U.S. to lead the world, it would have happened.Near death experiencer Howard Storm was shown quite a bit about the role that G-d had planned for the USA.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a04
What we believe is very relevant to reality.Multiverse theory is quite irrelevant to reality.
Hate to sound hyper-technical but I don't believe "multiverse" even rises to the level of a theory; it's an idea, a speculation. And quantum mechanics which is much more solid, with aspects of it proven experimentally, is still open to over a dozen philosophical interpretations, some of which include the idea of multiverse. So it's hard to say at this point anyway.
There is zero evidence for this idea and there will never be any evidence.
It is conjecture about something happening outside of our universe.
It was concocted by those who realize that if ours is the only universe(and it is) then there is not statistical way that life is possible without a designer.
Actually, I find certain aspects of biology make less sense if you assume they were created by an intelligent being rather than being a result of purely natural processes.The closer we look at creation without reference to a creator, the more confused we become. Logically, a creator would confuse those who only focus on creation.
Incorrect. If this is the only universe, it just means that our physics are the only ones that could exist, and those physics allow for life to develop.There is zero evidence for this idea and there will never be any evidence.
It is conjecture about something happening outside of our universe.
It was concocted by those who realize that if ours is the only universe(and it is) then there is not statistical way that life is possible without a designer.
Incorrect. If this is the only universe, it just means that our physics are the only ones that could exist, and those physics allow for life to develop.
The statistical probability of life existing, given our physics, is exceedingly high, to the point that life never developing anywhere would be the statistically unlikely outcome.Yes, but the statistical possibility for life to develop here points to a designer.
If our universe is one of billions, then atheists don't have to deal with the impossibility of our life coming about randomly.
The statistical probability of life existing, given our physics, is exceedingly high, to the point that life never developing anywhere would be the statistically unlikely outcome.
Your mistake is that statistics will give a false impression of improbability when measuring aspects of the universe if you aren't very careful to factor in the sheer size of it.
Actually, I find certain aspects of biology make less sense if you assume they were created by an intelligent being rather than being a result of purely natural processes.
Life is a series of chemical reactions. The only difference between the maintenance of your body and the formation of a rock is the number of steps and reactions.Except when you take a closer look and realize those "natural processes" that make biology possible, came into existence at the same point the universe came into existence. This explains nothing.
Another explanation is that the "natural processes" that make biology possible, have always existed eternally. Which would mean life as we know it came from an eternal life giving force.
Life is a series of chemical reactions. The only difference between the maintenance of your body and the formation of a rock is the number of steps and reactions.
Also, how would the later mean that it came from "an eternal life giving force" exactly? You seem to jump to that conclusion for no reason. It is also rendered further irrelevant, considering that in order for you to even come to that conclusion based on your flawed reasoning, you have to eliminate the universe having an origin.
Nope, it doesn't explain it. Not knowing is not an excuse to shove God in, because it discourages you from actually trying to find the answer. If God is the correct answer, your findings will match it, but you shouldn't assume that will be the case. This is the God of the gaps fallacy.Sure, but this does not explain why or how the series of reactions began.
I don't eliminate the universe having an origin. I firmly believe the universe has an origin because we can observe that the universe originated somehow, most likely from something eternal and not from nothing. The question is how or why did it originate. The most fundamental explanation is that an eternal force that has no origin is the cause of our observable universe beginning.
Logically this eternal force would be natural and intrinsic to our very being. IOW, we can't separate ourselves from this eternal force because it is the reason or cause of our existence. I simply refer to this force as God and I recognize that without God, I would not exist, therefore I am thankful to God for existing before me so that I can exist.
It's a simple explanation for life, take it or leave it, it will always be there as the simplest explanation for life as we know it.
Nope, it doesn't explain it. Not knowing is not an excuse to shove God in, because it discourages you from actually trying to find the answer. If God is the correct answer, your findings will match it, but you shouldn't assume that will be the case. This is the God of the gaps fallacy.
Also, your definition of God is so vague, it literally can apply to natural forces. If the universe has a cause, you call it God. However, the rules of cause and effect in our universe only existed AFTER the Big Bang, so it is feasible that our universe doesn't have a cause, or, weirdly enough, predates its cause. Time, space, etc. did not exist.
You don't get to make special rules for God. The assumption being God doesn't make it any more valid than the assumption being an eggplant.FYI, if God is the explanation, the assumption itself is valid, whether you like it or not. That very same criticism applies to pretty much every hypothetical cosmology construct however, including multiverse theory.
I'd also point out that the idea of anything precluding 'spacetime' is a bit of an atheist urban legend. As long as there is any amount of "energy" in the system, spacetime as Einstein describes it necessarily exist. There really is no evidence that there was ever a time when spacetime did not exist.
You don't get to make special rules for God. The assumption being God doesn't make it any more valid than the assumption being an eggplant.
Time itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, so, technically, terms like "before" don't work all that well.
However, I am limited by language, so I don't know better words to use to describe the concept I am trying to convey. Also, I am free to disagree with Einstein.
What special rules exactly? Of the things you have listed, the only one I know hasn't been observed either directly or indirectly in a conclusive way is dark energy, which while working well with the model of the universe when implemented, there is a decent chance it does not exist, so doubting it is reasonable. Which I can say about a lot of physics. Our understanding of that topic is highly limited, so it isn't uncommon for the mainstream ideas to be completely discarded within a few years. However, no evidence for deities exists at all, something every one of those things on that list has some of.Why not? Astronomers make special rules for all hypothetical constructs including inflation, dark energy, dark matter, M-Theory, Multiverse theory, QM concepts about gravity, etc. Even creating numerous "properties" related to hypothetical entities is simply par for the course in astronomy.
Technically anything that has energy has time associated with it. Even if we *assume* a "bang", there can be no assumption about there ever being a zero energy state. Your statement of faith should read......"If all matter/energy came magically popping out of "nothing", then maybe there was a period of time when spacetime did not exist."
The concept you're trying to describe is "creation ex-nihilo" and it comes straight out of "religion", not physics.
You are of course free to disagree with Einstein if that makes you happy.
Nope, it doesn't explain it. Not knowing is not an excuse to shove God in, because it discourages you from actually trying to find the answer. If God is the correct answer, your findings will match it, but you shouldn't assume that will be the case. This is the God of the gaps fallacy.
Also, your definition of God is so vague, it literally can apply to natural forces. If the universe has a cause, you call it God. However, the rules of cause and effect in our universe only existed AFTER the Big Bang, so it is feasible that our universe doesn't have a cause, or, weirdly enough, predates its cause. Time, space, etc. did not exist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?