Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

[Ricter]

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the weak anthropic principle. Imho, we don't need a "multiverse" to give us sufficient odds, this universe is already big enough.

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:

Not that I'm aware of.

Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


Are you purposely avoiding posting that specific law(s) of physics that allows for <s>something</s> universes to spring forth from nothing?

I would seriously like to see it.

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

 

[stu]

Quote from CaptainObvious:
I just don't think it serves any good purpose to call people stupid just because they believe in God

Who is calling stupid exactly?.....

Quote from Trader666:

Quote from STUpid.

Quote from CaptainObvious:

As far as my personal beliefs go, I think science provides a stronger argument for everything except the actual moment of creation.

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 actual moment of lightening, even though the laws of physics allowed for lightening.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

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

I'm not.


I'm asking, yet again, for the law(s) of physics which YOU have mention repeatedly that says a universe can spontaneously appear from nothing.

 

[Trader666]

I'm calling you STUpid because you are. For example:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2953564#post2953564
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2956316#post2956316

Quote from STUpid:

Who is calling stupid exactly?.....

 

[Hello]

Stu can you please expain to me why, when i go through 7 pages of your posts, every single post attacks religion?

Are you a closet catholic?

 

[stu]

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

Quote from Lucrum:
I'm not.

You're not? Are you sure?

Quote from stu:
It's called evolution.

Quote from Lucrum:
Which according to a link posted by YOU just days ago... is just a THEORY.

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 THEORY" argument no matter what?

So the laws of physics that allow a universe to begin from nothing would just be another THEORY, which of course is purposely misleading and/or dishonest.

 

[stu]

Quote from Hello:

Stu can you please expain to me why, when i go through 7 pages of your posts, every single post attacks religion?

Are you a closet catholic?

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 as you asked, I'm not enough of a superstitious self-hater to be any sort of catholic .

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

You're not? Are you sure?

Pretty sure, but what's that got to do with you not posting the law of physics that says a universe can suddenly appear out of nothing?

How may times will you avoid this by answering questions with questions?

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from intradaybill:

Man was desinged. The specified high complexity found in man organs cannot have risen by chance because that would require an infinite time according to the laws of probability. I do not know about the universe and whether it was created by a God but those who think that a rational being like man with two complex eyes that focus with high speed, complex mechanicms that carry proteins in cells and a brain that can deliver language was made by chance are simply naive and autistic.

How do you know? Give us your evidence to support these claims.

Besides, no one claims it was made by "chance", they claim it was made by natural selection and evolution, which are systematic processes, not random luck. I hardly think that a majority of the world's top chemists, biologists, and evolution researchers are "naive" and "autistic", they are far more qualified than you on the matter. You are the one overestimating your knowledge of the subject, overestimating your logical reasoning skills, and making unfounded assertions without supplying evidence.