"God" is a tyrant.

[Czernobog]

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

Expert testimony is evidence. Inflation theory is evidence. Observations which validate the theory are evidence. General relativity is evidence. It has been proven in a myriad of ways. Where is your evidence?

Actually, the new model doesn't counter that:

"Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.


Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.

In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.

Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.

"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das"

In other words, an eternal universe, no God necessary.

 

[sealybobo]

And you still have not refuted my arguments using science or logic. Try harder. Try using science. Try using logic. You do know how to do that, right?

"An argument is the process by which one explains how a conclusion was reached. Logic is the science that we use to explain or represent a consistent argument about a particular topic. Everyone argues their position at one time or the other and may choose to do so in various manners. However, a logical argument follows certain guiding principles or procedures in hopes of arriving at a desired conclusion. The ultimate goal is to present an idea that is both consist and coherent.

There are four common ways of presenting an argument:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Abductive
4. Analogy

Parts of a Logical Argument
Think of scientists. When they are investigating a topic, they first have a hypothesis, then do some tests, make some observations, and arrive at a conclusion. In the same way, a logical argument follows a certain order.

A proposition is the starting point of your argument or the statement that you are trying to prove. For example, suppose you want to argue the point that drinking too much alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver. This is your opening statement, also known as the proposition from which you will build. It is the equivalent of a hypothesis.

The premise is the statement or statements that follow the proposition. Your premise is basically your evidence or reasons used to justify the proposition. In our example, you would provide medical studies to show why alcohol could cause cirrhosis of the liver. Just like scientists must do tests and observations to prove that the hypothesis is true or false, a logical argument must present premises to prove that it is sound.

The argument's inference is based on your premise or evidence, you may discover new propositions or statements. This is the process of using evidence to discover new propositions.

After you have completed the cyclic process of stating your proposition and presenting evidence that may lead you to new propositions, then you will arrive at a conclusion."

Logical Argument: Definition, Parts & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Here is beating your argument with logic.

Can you, or anyone else, observe, measure, or otherwise, te4st what did, or did not exist before the universe existed? Yes, or no?

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

Do you mean other than knowing that the laws of nature existed before space and time?

No one knows that. Please present one credible scientist who claims that the laws of nature existed before the universe, and has evidence of such.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Leon Lederman and Alexander Vilenkin. I pretty sure Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking too.

Quote, any one of them, with a reference citing, of them saying that the laws of nature preexist reality.

Now, Hawking, actually did, but that is because Hawking argued a cyclical universe, which you deny You can't have it both ways. Either we exist in a cyclical universe, in which case, yes, the laws of nature pre-date this universe, or we do not, in which case, the laws of the universe came into being when the universe did. You choose. Same with both Lederman, and Velenkin. You want to accept their premise of pre-existing laws of nature, without accepting the condition that created those conditions. Sorry, you don't get to just pick, and choose which parts of a theory you like.

No. Hawking did not argue a cyclical universe. No one is arguing a cyclical universe anymore. That theory is dead. The theory of inflation, which is what I have based my statements on is super string theory. Hawking endorses it. You don't know what you are talking about.

.

No. Hawking did not argue a cyclical universe. No one is arguing a cyclical universe anymore. That theory is dead. The theory of inflation, which is what I have based my statements on is super string theory. Hawking endorses it. You don't know what you are talking about.

.

the cyclical universe

the trajectory of matter from the expulsion after Singularity is traveling at a finite angle and will in mass return to its origin and recreate the compaction that will again create a new moment of Singularity.

the theory is far from being disproved.

 

[ding]

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is the best theory for describing the physical world and requires independent laws. Laws which do not violate the laws of conservation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You get that you are circling right back around to the very theory that I presented over a month ago, that proves, though the use of quantum material, that the universe is capable of being endlessly inflating, contracting, and restarting, no God necessary, right? and, now you're attempting to use it to prove God?!?!?

If this is what you believed then you got it horribly wrong. It is not eternal into the past. It is not a cyclical universe. Maybe you should have watched the video's I posted because as near as I can remember you were arguing that the universe did not have a beginning. Eternal into the future does not mean eternal into the past.

Except that very quantum material that does not violate the law of conversion, is exactly why it can be eternal, both ways. Your whole argument, is that there is not enough energy for an eternally inflating, and contracting universe. However, you at a quantum level so long as it does not violate the conservation laws (as in massless particles), then there is a non-zero probability of occurrence. In other words, a constantly inflating, and contracting universe has a non-zero probability of occurrence.

You still don't understand inflation theory. A constantly inflating and contracting universe is not inflation theory. You are describing a cyclical universe and that model is dead.

This universe is not eternal into the past. This universe had a beginning. And it isn't my argument, it is their model. A model which tells us that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Yes, there is nothing to prevent another universe from forming in this manner from a closed small false vacuum. And the laws of nature would be in place for that universe as well before its space and time were created.

Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

Expert testimony is evidence. Inflation theory is evidence. Observations which validate the theory are evidence. General relativity is evidence. It has been proven in a myriad of ways. Where is your evidence?

Okay. I stand corrected. The laws of physics, they say, just were. The problem is that those same physicists that you are so proudly quoting, have said that this is exactly why God was not necessary. God didn't need to jumpstart the universe. The laws just were, and so, it happened. Still, no. God. Necessary.

That isn't right either. Most do believe something is the source of the laws. They may not believe in a personal God, but they understand that there is a source; a cause. Vilenkin says he believes that it is something like consciousness. There are many others who believe the same. I don't see how it can be any other way. I take it a step further and have incorporated what has happened after space and time were created and do believe in a personal God. And I have good reason for my beliefs.

 

[ding]

For the record that isn't you beating my argument with logic. That was you asking a question which proves the irrationality of your incessant demand for proof of the supernatural. Let me show you what logic looks like.

1. You believe that it is impossible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.
2. Therefore, you believe it is illogical to expect science to prove any answer for what happened before space and time.
3. You demand others provide scientific evidence for a supernatural being which exists outside of space and time.
4. Therefore your demand is illogical because you do not believe it is possible for science to observe anything which exists outside of space and time.

Now do you understand?

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

Expert testimony is evidence. Inflation theory is evidence. Observations which validate the theory are evidence. General relativity is evidence. It has been proven in a myriad of ways. Where is your evidence?

Okay. I stand corrected. The laws of physics, they say, just were. The problem is that those same physicists that you are so proudly quoting, have said that this is exactly why God was not necessary. God didn't need to jumpstart the universe. The laws just were, and so, it happened. Still, no. God. Necessary.

That isn't right either. Most do believe something is the source of the laws. They may not believe in a personal God, but they understand that there is a source; a cause. Vilenkin says he believes that it is something like consciousness. There are many others who believe the same. I don't see how it can be any other way. I take it a step further and have incorporated what has happened after space and time were created and do believe in a personal God. And I have good reason for my beliefs.

And there we are back to beliefs. Beliefs are great, but those of us who Ade rationalists prefer what can be proven, validated, measured.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

It is beating you with logic, because your claim is logically flawed.

Get it?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

No. I don't think it was. It did not fit the model of logic. I even gave you an example of what that looked like as well as a description of the process.

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are moral laws of nature. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

 

[ding]

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate puts it thusly, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

That quote is very poetic. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the poetry.

Expert testimony is evidence. Inflation theory is evidence. Observations which validate the theory are evidence. General relativity is evidence. It has been proven in a myriad of ways. Where is your evidence?

Okay. I stand corrected. The laws of physics, they say, just were. The problem is that those same physicists that you are so proudly quoting, have said that this is exactly why God was not necessary. God didn't need to jumpstart the universe. The laws just were, and so, it happened. Still, no. God. Necessary.

That isn't right either. Most do believe something is the source of the laws. They may not believe in a personal God, but they understand that there is a source; a cause. Vilenkin says he believes that it is something like consciousness. There are many others who believe the same. I don't see how it can be any other way. I take it a step further and have incorporated what has happened after space and time were created and do believe in a personal God. And I have good reason for my beliefs.

And there we are back to beliefs. Beliefs are great, but those of us who Ade rationalists prefer what can be proven, validated, measured.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But I can prove it through reason and experience. I can validate it through reason and experience. I can measure it through reason and experience.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. Your argument doesn't fit the model of logic.
Your Premise: The laws of nature existed before the universe.

Okay. Where is your evidence?

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

 

[ding]

Even though pre our universe can never be known I believe the laws of nature existed then. Don't you?

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex three nights a week will score as well on the SAT and go to college and be successful in life as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

 

[Czernobog]

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex will score as well on the SAT as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

Sure. Actually, my best friend was partying the night before our SATs, until an hour before the test, and he scored higher than anyone else there. Like I said...

 

[ding]

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex will score as well on the SAT as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

Sure.

I see. So a man who is dishonest, cheats, steals and is lazy will be just as likely to get into trouble with the law as a man who is honest and hard working?

 

[Czernobog]

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex will score as well on the SAT as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

Sure.

I see. So a man who is dishonest, cheats, steals and is lazy will be just as likely to get into trouble with the law as a man who is honest and hard working?

Have you seen our police, and courts? And you need to ask that question?!?! Yeah. Yeah he is.

 

[BreezeWood]

Belief is not part of the equation. What can be proven. What can not. Now, having read what Ding is referring to, mathematically, through quantum mechanics, the physical laws of the universe could have existed, Ina quantum state, prior to the expanse of the universe, yes. However, that fact only verifies that the universe could have expanded itself without the need of any outside influence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex three nights a week will score as well on the SAT and go to college and be successful in life as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

.

spinning out of control alert ... can't stop himself.

 

[Czernobog]

And that is where the moral laws of nature and the evolution of matter come into play.

Now you've wandered back into the philosophical. There is no such thing. Moral laws, I mean. Evolution of matter is something I am not familiar with, and cannot speak to with authority.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex three nights a week will score as well on the SAT and go to college and be successful in life as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

.

spinning out of control alert ... can't stop himself.

He wants to believe that he lives in a world where "good" is rewarded, and "evil" is punished. Unfortunately, the reality is that "good" and 'evil" are fluid, and even in the cases where it is less so, crime, and punishment rarely has anything to do with some cosmic balance sheet. I mean, look at the success of Donald Trump. Clearly, being "virtuous" is not necessary to be successful.

 

[ding]

But there are. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Yes.

So a teenage girl who goes out partying every night and is sexually promiscuous and has unprotected sex will score as well on the SAT as a teenage girl who stays home studying?

Or a man who cheats on his wife will have as loving relationship with his wife as a man who is devoted and faithful to his wife?

Sure.

I see. So a man who is dishonest, cheats, steals and is lazy will be just as likely to get into trouble with the law as a man who is honest and hard working?

Have you seen our police, and courts? And you need to ask that question?!?! Yeah. Yeah he is.

I see it a little differently. Reason and experience tell us that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Reason and experience tell us that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. That's why they are called natural laws.

 

[MaryL]

Proposed: The Christian God is a tyrant determined to force everyone on the planet to convert to Christianity, and worship as a Christian, and the illusion of "Free Will" is a pretence that he created to convince you that observance was your own idea.

Otherwise, why fill the Bible with references of the eternal torture, and suffering that would befall non-believers after judgement, when one dies. Now, the first question that is going to be asked is going to be an attempt at a distraction: "Why should I care what the Bible says, since I'm an Atheist?" However, it doesn't matter what my theological position is, does it? "The truth is the truth," right? So, if the Bible is the Truth, then the things that are in the Bible are "the Truth" whether I believe them, or not. Which, brings us right back around to my question. If God is not a tyrant, and does not demand worship from everyone, then why threaten anyone who does not believe? If God does not care one way, or the other, if someone chooses to believe, or not, why bother with all of the threats?

Religion is a trip, isn't it? If you despise modern religions, well, what do you think about ISLAM? They tax nonbelievers, or just put them to death. I can accept American moderate theists, at least THEY don't condemn us do death in the modern world. But when Islam can't even tell who is the bad guys, DAMN. I mean, HOLY SHIT.