Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This really is nonsense and you know it. Whilst science has made major advancements, we are still operating in comparative infancy regarding our understanding of our own significance in the cosmos and comprehending how our environment behaves around us. Gamma rays for eg were only discovered 50 years ago, DNA sequencing has only been introduced in the last 40 years which is nothing taking into account the age of the human race. We are still debating in 2017 whether Mars our closest planet has water ffs and you think ” the laws of physics explain away XYZ” .. laughable
None of those things are laws, or effect laws.
I don’t think you know what a law is.The only way to test that theory, which is what it is, is a parallel universe with cameras recording events in every one ascertaining whether identical stimuli present identical results. As you haven’t access to a universe traversing a normal linear time line into a quantum parallel reality your “theory ” can’t be proven or substantiated can it?
The laws of physics dictate that the same decision must always be taken, anything else is impossible. You have to prove that the laws of physics are wrong.
The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.
They have remained fairly constant for a long time now.I’m not sure where you got this idea that they are always changing from.
Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.
If you want to ‘ammend’ the laws of physics, then you need very strong evidence, of why the current laws do not work, what the new laws should be, and why the new laws are correct.
Define free will.
That’s what my post was …
That a brain in the same state, given the same environmental stimuli would produce different behaviour each or some of the times that those stimuli are applied.
The crusades were hundreds of years ago and bear no relevance to Christianity in the 21st century.
Deus vult!
Whether Jesus existed is irrelevant , what is relevant is whether he was ” the son of God”. Most historians accept there probably was a figure existing round this time called Jesus who was most likely a travelling trickster elevated to divine/holy status perpetuating a myth he was the son of “God”
Historians aren’t scientists, history isn’t a science. I don’t care much what they accept or not. There is no evidence that Jesus existed, so there is no reason to believe that he did.
(The bible also says that there was more than one Jesus, most people seem to ignore this)
Free will does exist if you go against social structure and go against the law and go against society in general.
Free will is the idea that if unknowingly placed into identical situations a person could make different choices each time.
This requires that the brain has functionality outside of its biological and chemical components. The laws of physics dictate that given the same state of molecules, electrons, ect inside of the brain, and given the same environmental input, the brain must always make the same choice. It can never do anything else, it is predetermined by the state of the universe at that point in time.
The is no evidence that suggests this isn’t the case.
Paige was merely making the argument against your point that God should be making people worship him if he exists.
I never said that God would make people worship him, only that more people would choose to worship him if they knew that he existed.
That’s just a misunderstanding. You’re mixing up God’s creation of a universe and God’s interaction with an already created universe
My post was never about the ‘creation’ of the universe.
Therefore, in measuring the universe, we are measuring God’s creation.
No, you have to prove that God exists before you can prove that God created the universe.
Secondly, as alfie points out, religions claim that God did interact with the universe. God appeared to Moses and (in Islam) to Mohammed.
Claims that have never been verified, which would be trivially easy to do if they were true.
In Christianity, God appears as a man, who was rejected and killed by men.
There is no mainstream branch in christianity in which God is killed by a human. What does it even mean to kill a being that exists outside of time and space?
That means that god appeared at a particular point in space and time, and therefore it is possible for historical evidence to be gathered which can disprove that Jesus actually existed and did the things he claimed. So far History hasn’t been able to disprove this; quite the contrary.
There is no evidence that Jesus existed, even if there were. It does nothing to prove he was anything other than a normal human.
As far as I know, the only part of the bible that has been proven to be true is that the remains of human sacrifices have been found in the general area thought to be described as Caanan. The bible describes the Canaanites as people who worshiped the god Moloch (one of many other gods that exist in the bible) by human sacrifice.
This doesn’t even prove that Caanan existed, there are no cities, or other evidence of that part of the world being significantly populated at that time. Just that there was a small tribe who had some form of ritual involving human bodies.
