Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's nice.
So what is your point? Can you not state it?
Oh, the answer is no.I asked if there was a third, fourth or fifth alternative or if those were his only two alternatives.....
Great start. There's actually no reason to presume "nothing" ever existed. Locally and temporarily? Sure. Einstein's frozen energy analogy was no doubt useful for his purposes at the time but it's awful in hindsight nonetheless. Your last assertion assigning mass to energy is weird, but go ahead and add flesh to it..The matter wasn't created from nothing, it was created from energy. As Einstein showed, matter is 'frozen' energy. I think we're finding that 95% of the mass of the universe is in the form of energy.
True. But there is no good reason to rule it out (Ontological parlor tricks notwithstanding).There's actually no reason to presume "nothing" ever existed.
Religion doesn't deny real science. Many scientists are religious.Maybe so. Maybe Not. But if that creation idea is denied or ignoref, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Deny science, amd you are sticking forks in electric outlets and trying to jump off your roof and fall up.
is that a yes?I am asking you if you are claiming there is no science that could have produced that result.
It consistently has and does. Did you mean, your version of religion? Because I assure you, for plenty of other people's versions, it does precisely that (deny real science). I'm talking a LOT of people. Billions, even.Religion doesn't deny real science.
Science has already answered that question, for themselves..Neither can the rest of us. As Dawkins says, whether or not God exists is a scientific question.
That makes no sense.It always strikes me as odd how the faithers will, at one moment, claim to he so proud of their faith...
...then, in the next moment, claim they are producing sound arguments and evidence for the truth of their faith based beliefs. As if they have a moment of clarity and are embarrassed by their faith.
The ToE isn't real science. Other than that, we like science. Without science I wouldn't be enjoying the Modelo I'm drinking.It consistently has and does. Did you mean, your version of religion? Because I assure you, for plenty of other people's versions, it does precisely that (deny real science). I'm talking a LOT of people. Billions, even.
Don't waste my time.The ToE isn't real science.
It doesn't take a lot of faith to see science in the creation, it's all around us. What takes faith is believing that what God says about the human condition is true and applies to everyone, even (gasp) unbelievers.That's where the faithers ALWAYS get it wrong. Every single time. Ass backwards wrong.
As predictable as the sunrise.
A fine illustration of the utter incompatibility of science and faith.
Negative energy in the universe can balance that equation.So if, "As Einstein showed, matter is 'frozen' energy." Then "particles" must be "frozen" energy as well since "particles" have mass (like matter). Else their motion could create no momentum.. kinetic.. inertial.. energy. N'est ce pas?
That's all I have to say about it.Don't waste my time.
That's all well and good. But either you agree God did it via evolution, or you're wrong. This debate is over. Has been for a long long time.It doesn't take a lot of faith to see science in the creation, it's all around us. What takes faith is believing that what God says about the human condition is true and applies to everyone, even (gasp) scientists. Even then God grants the faith to believers.
Religion is primarily a set of moral and ethical codes, among other things, and is more needed today than science.Neither.
It is a myth.
Religion is believing myths are reality.
I agree that it's over.That's all well and good. But either you agree God did it via evolution, or you're wrong. This debate is over. Has been for a long long time.
