You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[ding]

No, you're a troll.

Did you use to post under the name of Cardinal Carminative?

 

[Wuwei]

Cause and effect is self evident.

My view is that cause and effect is for philosophers to ponder. It is sort of used in courts of law, but is quite vacuous in enlightening anything substantial in science. The subject of cause and effect is usually brought up with undercurrents of a theological context that the science minded avoid because it often leads to the 𝔉𝔦𝔯𝔰𝔱 ℭ𝔞𝔲𝔰𝔢 of the universe which is 𝔊𝔬𝔡.

I would think that "Big Bang" is a better word for a first cause, if you need to put it that way. It is more specific because the word, God, carries a lot of other meanings. People don't kneel or sing songs in a majestic building with stained glass windows to the Big Bang. Using god as the first cause does not mean that that same entity micromanages events and the wishes of people on earth.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm really OK with religion if it is kept out of science classes and the government.

 

[ding]

My view is that cause and effect is for philosophers to ponder. It is sort of used in courts of law, but is quite vacuous in enlightening anything substantial in science. The subject of cause and effect is usually brought up with undercurrents of a theological context that the science minded avoid because it often leads to the 𝔉𝔦𝔯𝔰𝔱 ℭ𝔞𝔲𝔰𝔢 of the universe which is 𝔊𝔬𝔡.

I would think that "Big Bang" is a better word for a first cause, if you need to put it that way. It is more specific because the word, God, carries a lot of other meanings. People don't kneel or sing songs in a majestic building with stained glass windows to the Big Bang. Using god as the first cause does not mean that that same entity micromanages events and the wishes of people on earth.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm really OK with religion if it is kept out of science classes and the government.

In this case cause and effect was being brought up because she believes everything is alive and everything is random.

 

[ding]

My view is that cause and effect is for philosophers to ponder. It is sort of used in courts of law, but is quite vacuous in enlightening anything substantial in science. The subject of cause and effect is usually brought up with undercurrents of a theological context that the science minded avoid because it often leads to the 𝔉𝔦𝔯𝔰𝔱 ℭ𝔞𝔲𝔰𝔢 of the universe which is 𝔊𝔬𝔡.

I would think that "Big Bang" is a better word for a first cause, if you need to put it that way. It is more specific because the word, God, carries a lot of other meanings. People don't kneel or sing songs in a majestic building with stained glass windows to the Big Bang. Using god as the first cause does not mean that that same entity micromanages events and the wishes of people on earth.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm really OK with religion if it is kept out of science classes and the government.

But to your point I don't see the big bang as God.

 

[Wuwei]

But to your point I don't see the big bang as God.

Good for you. Many try to use the big bang as proof of God, which it isn't, as my post argues.

 

[ding]

Good for you. Many try to use the big bang as proof of God, which it isn't, as my post argues.

The CMB is evidence for the universe popping into existence not being created from existing matter. Monotheism is based upon a belief in a creating moralistic, providential creator. Monotheists believe the creator created the universe ex nihilo. So the belief predated the theory of the big bang.

 

[ding]

Using god as the first cause does not mean that that same entity micromanages events and the wishes of people on earth.

That's more of a polytheistic belief than a monotheistic belief. We don't see God as pulling levers and pushing buttons.

 

[ding]

cause and effect is for philosophers to ponder.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature (i.e. cause and effect) so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

 

[Wuwei]

The CMB is evidence for the universe popping into existence not being created from existing matter. Monotheism is based upon a belief in a creating moralistic, providential creator. Monotheists believe the creator created the universe ex nihilo. So the belief predated the theory of the big bang.

It doesn't matter what predated what. The science of the big bang still doesn't prove the God that most Christians believe in.

That's more of a polytheistic belief than a monotheistic belief. We don't see God as pulling levers and pushing buttons.

It seems you are saying people pray to multiple gods. Most people pray to one god and that one god is thought by many to grant wishes, or whatever.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature (i.e. cause and effect) so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

You can call science a study of cause and effect as you will. I don't care. But the phrase does not occur in any of the hundreds of text books or journals I have read. So to me it is a vacuous phrase that doesn't add anything to science. It's for philosophers.

 

[ding]

It doesn't matter what predated what.

It does when you argue the evidence for the universe beginning can't be used as proof for the belief that God created the universe. Because it most certainly can.

 

[ding]

It seems you are saying people pray to multiple gods. Most people pray to one god and that one god is thought by many to grant wishes, or whatever.

No, I'm saying you are confusing polytheism with monotheism. Polytheism believed that gods controlled nature and human affairs. Monotheists don't.

 

[ding]

You can call science a study of cause and effect as you will. I don't care. But the phrase does not occur in any of the hundreds of text books or journals I have read. So to me it is a vacuous phrase that doesn't add anything to science. It's for philosophers.

Which part of my statement is incorrect?

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature (i.e. cause and effect) so as to be able to make predictions of nature.​

 

[Wuwei]

It does when you argue the evidence for the universe beginning can't be used as proof for the belief that God created the universe. Because it most certainly can.

Maybe to you and other religious people. But the entity behind the creation of the universe is nevertheless unknown. Calling it God confuses it with religion.

No, I'm saying you are confusing polytheism with monotheism. Polytheism believed that gods controlled nature and human affairs. Monotheists don't.

Then why do Christians pray to their one God to save their sick relative, or the hurricane does not hit them, etc. Your religion is quite unorthodox. Even insurance companies use the phrase, an act of god.

Which part of my statement is incorrect?

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature (i.e. cause and effect) so as to be able to make predictions of nature.​

Strawman. I said it's vacuous, not incorrect.

 

[ding]

Maybe to you and other religious people. But the entity behind the creation of the universe is nevertheless unknown. Calling it God confuses it with religion.

I'm not confused. I believe this is a life breeding intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. The only thing I'm confused about is why would you care what others choose to believe.

 

[ding]

Then why do Christians pray to their one God to save their sick relative, or the hurricane does not hit them, etc. Your religion is quite unorthodox. Even insurance companies use the phrase, an act of god.

Petitioning God and believing God controls all aspects of nature and life are two different things. I wouldn't expect you to understand a religion that was not your own.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Petitioning God and believing God controls all aspects of nature and life are two different things. I wouldn't expect you to understand a religion that was not your own.

I can assure you that nothing about your religion is a mystery to anyone.

 

[ding]

Maybe to you and other religious people. But the entity behind the creation of the universe is nevertheless unknown. Calling it God confuses it with religion.

Then why do Christians pray to their one God to save their sick relative, or the hurricane does not hit them, etc. Your religion is quite unorthodox. Even insurance companies use the phrase, an act of god.

Strawman. I said it's vacuous, not incorrect.

How is mindless to say, "Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature?" How does it show a lack of intelligence? How does it show a lack of thought? I believe it was a thoughtful and an intelligent description of what science is.

If you ask me militant atheism is vacuous. It is mindless and thoughtless to condemn respect for others based on religious beliefs. Condemning respect for others based upon religious beliefs shows an incredible lack of intelligence.

 

[ding]

I can assure you that nothing about your religion is a mystery to anyone.

Really? What was the significance of the woman at the well being alone?

 

[Wuwei]

I'm not confused. I believe this is a life breeding intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. The only thing I'm confused about is why would you care what others choose to believe.

I want to keep religion out of schools and government. That's why I care. However, the good news for many is that Christianity is declining in the US.

 

[Wuwei]

Petitioning God and believing God controls all aspects of nature and life are two different things. I wouldn't expect you to understand a religion that was not your own.

Then it seems fruitless to petition God for your personal desires, so yes I don't understand religion.