POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
It does not "demonstrate" it at all. Cosmology merely *postulates* certain possibilities, given the extremely limited evidence we have about the origins of the universe. For all we know, all our evidence could be fallacious, or it could *look* as though the universe had a start point, but that in fact there was a universe before this point, but that no evidence remains of its existence. Cosmology has made no scientific (i.e. unambiguous and falsifiable) proofs whatsover about whether the universe was created, or was always there. Also, the second law of thermodynamics does not demonstrate anything at all about what happened at the alleged origin of the universe - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a *theory* (like all science, it is merely a postulation that has yet to be falsified), not a binding law of reality, and one which has been based on merely the tiny proportion of time in the universe's history in which humans have been alive and/or able to accumulate data from. When dealing with a universe with an estimated age in the multiple billions at least, we have simply no idea whether the laws of physics applied in its early period in the same way that they do now, nor that they will continue to hold tens of billions of years in the future. This is all mere conjecture, with *no* scientific evidence to support it.
How do we "know" this? We simply have no idea that the alleged origin of the universe has a cause. What's more, we don't even know if *any* events have a true cause, because observation of extremely high correlation does not imply causality at all, as Hume demonstrated a long time ago. Not only do you lack any evidence that there was a "cause" of the universe, evn if you had it, it would be logically impossible to differentiate the causality from mere correlation. One could not even imply "weak" causality (i.e. very high correlation), because there is only one data point. To imply high correlation one needs many data points.
Even if one accepts there was a cause of the universe's existence, and that the universe was created at one specific point rather than existing forever (neither of which claim has been supported by evidence, let alone proven), what evidence is there that it was God that created it? That is simply one hypothesis amongst countless possibilities. For all we know, the universe may have been created by Zeus farting, or it may have come into being by a cause of which we know absolutely nothing.
Where is your evidence that life could not exist in a non-designed universe? If I use a random word generator long enough, at some point it will create the complete works of Shakespeare. This is not evidence for design, any more than that the existence of intelligent life on earth is evidence for design. Both are accountable for by unthinking processes completely lacking in any intelligent thought or design.
In fact it is very easy. Groups of humans which practise morality are more likely to co-operate in unison, and therefore prove stronger as a whole compared to groups of random individuals who do not cooperate at all. Altruism and other ethical traits present in humans strongly assist mutual cooperation and progress. Thus morality is easily explicable by basic natural selection. Even if this were not the case, morality could simply be a randomly arising trait of humans - just because it is allegedly "difficult to account for", does not suggest in any way that the existence of God must be postulated. Lack of knowledge about something's origins is not in any way proof of *any* theory about those origins.
My goodness, what a waste of words.
People do things that make them feel good.
Man is a pleasure seeking animal.
The only motivation we have is pleasure.
For some reason beyond me, people enjoy religion.
And discussing it ad naseum.
Ugh.
The worst religions are
Republicans and Democrats.
The worst god is
Money.
The worst sin is
The pursuit of Power.
People do things that make them feel good.
Man is a pleasure seeking animal.
The only motivation we have is pleasure.
For some reason beyond me, people enjoy religion.
And discussing it ad naseum.
Ugh.
The worst religions are
Republicans and Democrats.
The worst god is
Money.
The worst sin is
The pursuit of Power.
Quote from bobcathy1:
My goodness, what a waste of words.
People do things that make them feel good.
Man is a pleasure seeking animal.
The only motivation we have is pleasure.
For some reason beyond me, people enjoy religion.
And discussing it ad naseum.
Ugh.
The worst religions are
Republicans and Democrats.
The worst god is
Money.
The worst sin is
The pursuit of Power.
Cathy if you think these threads are about anything but STRUTTIN YOUR STUFF you are sadly mistahen..
L@@K
there goes AXEMAN now..
ROFLMAO!!
Why should a proof of God necessarily fall within the category you refer to as "normal" standards of proof?
If in fact God were not knowable via the physical senses, or mathematical calculation, nor by material dualistic logic, then those proofs that depend on the physical senses, mathematical calculation, and material dualistic would be the wrong type proofs to use in the evaluation of the existence of God.
There is this underlying assumption by the atheists that God must be physical, perceptible through the senses, subject to mathematical rules, and existing in a relativistic state.
If God was not physical, beyond the rules of mathematical calculations, i.e. capable of being both at a single point and everywhere at all times (which of course is not possible from a material logic perspective), not of a material nature that is perceivable via the senses, and existing in a non-dualistic state beyond relativistic logic, can you imagine a proof of God according to the definition I just gave you?
If not, your imagination is showing how severely limited it is.
On a purely conceptual level, discussions take place all the time of God and God's nature, even though humans lack the direct physical perception.
We can imagine what the term "nothing" means, yet we have never experienced "nothing." We understand the concept of nothing by our understanding of "something" then we imagine what it would be like when we take away everything. In mathematics, zero is nothing, and always exists. If you add any positive or negative number to zero, zero remains in its integrity. It is never destroyed, it simply is no longer seen when something is added to it. This fact is proven to be true mathematically, as you can never destroy zero. In mathematics, zero eternally exists, it cannot be destroyed, as it cannot be created....it is always there. All you can do is negate something, and after total negation zero remains, as it is, as it was, as it always will be.
Now, imagine the sum of everything. Like zero, the sum of everything can never change as everything also always exists. Even if you destroyed all things, zero would exist, which would then be everything.
So zero and everything exist as absolutes in a dual nature. They are both beyond human experience and real understanding beyond mathematical concepts.
God by definition is everything, and nothing at the same time. There is nothing beyond God, as God is absolute and supreme in nature.
What is the proof? When faith is complete, God gives man His vision to see Him, and His mind to understand Him.