Search results

Non of my posts attack religion per se. I attack, if that is the appropriate description, reasons given for pretending the claims being made for and by religion are valid. This is a thread about religion. Why wouldn't I be posting about religion in all 7 of the posts you counted ? Seeing...

You're not? Are you sure? If you are misunderstanding religion to be a theory in the same way evolution is a theory, how are you going to accurately consider the issue?. With that sort of reasoning, why wouldn't you always default to the moribund and redundant, everything is "just a...

Who is calling stupid exactly?..... Of course I have no objection to your personal beliefs. But I have a feeling if we were discussing this a hundred and something years ago, as far as your personal beliefs go , you'd be thinking science provides a stronger argument for everything up to the...

So which THEORY are you (seriously?) suggesting applies to superstitious beliefs about a makebelieve Sky Beast Creator?

Are you one of those who is being purposely misleading or dishonest about the use of the word THEORY?

christ... and they say my tone is bad! Probability and chance cannot explain specified complexity. Well, Yes they can actually . From the very basic and most simplest, to complex by small gradual changes over exceptionally long periods of time. It's called evolution. In your case...

No. What you seem to not want to admit is that a scientific theory has nothing in common with a creationist or a religious or an everyday theory, except the word.. Now it is you who is throwing up absolutes here . I don't. I apologize for the tone of my posts, yours can be a bit brusque...

The principle itself behind the laws of physics which allow for a universe to come from nothing, do not rely in essence on your assumption this is all about string theory . String theory is not the laws of physics.

The laws of physics that relate to the fundamental laws of nature with particular reference to Einstein rather than Newton.

The laws of physics allow for a universe to come from nothing. The laws of physics don't allow, nor specify, anything coming from nothing. Baking cakes and doing God are easy. But first you need a universe.

Then I suggest you keep hoping for similar mistakes, as that and name calling is clearly all you have.

1) An excellent description of religion 2) That'll be while there are no parachutists

Are you aware what human physicists base those scientific THEORIES on? They are called FACTS. Nothing like the superstitious religious theories based on human fear and ignorance.

I should elaborate on some bizarre idea that Gravity is only a theory ?

The laws of physics do not allow for a thing or another thing, or another thing again to begin from nothing, especially when those things are nothing to do with the laws of physics, but are mere symptoms of unbridled pretence. The universe is defined and exists. Calling the universe God is as...

No, not like you. I would require evidence to be taken more carefully. I would suggest you examine more closely reasons why you think you have anything like a weight of evidence for a God in the first place. Comparing weight of evidence for the existence of America as being in any way...

It is the laws of physics which allow the universe to begin from nothing, not atheists. It is only superstition and wishful thinking which allows a theist to pretend God could begin from nothing, whilst all the time it's so obvious God does not actually exist anyway in such profound ways as...

As usual you clearly didn't think that through. Going by what you say, You still need some kind of intelligence to command God to pop into existence. 'There would be no other way around it' So what type of logic do you have to explain where THAT God would be if God is supposedly needed to...

I can't do alone I am alone responsible ...cue imaginary friend.

Confused.. why? are you reading it "funny".