You can have at it with jem, but ascribing time to God is nuts. The Universe, as Einstein figured out a hundred years ago, creates time because it is constantly decaying and moving towards a state of perfect entropy. God, obviously, would not be in that state. Something eternal is outside of time. As for creating the perfect universe, no. You're thinking of Plato. Plato <> the Catholic Church, even though sometimes the Scholastics came perilously close to thinking that way. Answering the other stuff would just get too deeply into theological stuff that would go way beyond the ability to explain in a short post, so let me put it this way: as an obvious atheist, you really shouldn't be venturing into these waters. You're way too obviously over your head. What religion thinks outside of those places where they get into political stuff is something that shouldn't concern you. If it does, you're in the position of the lady from Shakespeare: you're protesting too much. Only a believer would be concerned with the stuff you're bringing up, and you say you're not. The evidence of your posts is leaning otherwise.
have at it. i am sure you can come up with nothing more than a pratt. "I wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence."
Einstein? (not saying that I agree with the entirety, but he hits the nail on the head as far as your attitude. It's exactly what he objected to, and what I object to.) Your quote is an appeal to authority, which is a pretty puerile debating tactic. As you can see, for every authority you can cite, I can cite another one. I'm not surprised at your constant resort to this, since ET is not exactly a challenging debating environment, to put it mildly. As for a pratt, what is that?
i dont think naive is a good enough description. i prefer willfully ignorant. you do realize that even since einsteins time we have made major advances in understanding. every piece of evidence does more to falsify primitive belief in gods. a pratt is a term used in religious debates because the bible thumpers just keep coming back with the same arguments that have long ago been refuted. it stands for "point refuted a thousand times". here is a list of common religious pratts. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html "science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into â but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god theyâre arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."
to me, people that can't see that God made everything are just blinded.. intellectuals claim they've explained away things like the shape of the Grand Canyon as one example, but they don't really have to. They own the venue for the debate and are the experts so they can get away with some very weak arguments and then ignore the issue forever.. they do that A LOT seemingly. It's intellectual groupthink and it's way off from reality. There is a huge difference between a person that goes and checks out the evidence for themselves and groupthink... I don't value groupthinkers, in fact they tend to be assholes whether they are religious right or intellectuals.
Really? So the faith-based are the ones who "see" reality rather than those who seek evidence? Fascinating. If only we hadn't regressed so far from the Dark Ages, eh?
Let me remind the leftist subject changers of the point of this thread. I have already crushed free thinker on many other threads about the fact it takes faith to say the universe got here by random chance. If any of you wish to debate that point, start a new thread and I will present recent info from nobel prize winners.
lol. only in your childish mind. "science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into â but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god theyâre arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."
proof of your ignorance from MIT - a survey of to geneticists and biologists on the virtually impossibility that life came from non life by random chance. http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf and an explanation that you have a choice fine tuning or faith in a mulitiverse... from a very top physicist. http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137 You always want to bring Jesus or the God of the bible into the debate. When have I ever said you must believe in Jesus or God of Abraham?