Is Big Bang Theory science or not? It certainly isn't "demonstrable, testable, repeatable and quantifiable." Yet there are loads of people who "believe" it. When they believe it without demonstrability, testability, repeatability, and quantifiability, they certainly aren't acting scientifically. So, how are they acting? Seems like they are acting religiously.

Religion and science overlap. They overlap as shown above. And they overlap because some of the doctrines or knowledge of almost every religion can be scientifically proven to be correct.

Add to this the fact that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity - this universe - couldn't exist in any way we might guess at, except that God existed to make it all.

Can you really not understand why there's a light show and not just a formless void?

Without the Jews cramming the globe down your throat 24/7 since birth nobody in their right mind would believe we're on a spinning ball; the globe has to be forced by twisting the facts and manufacturing evidence.

You always live in faith. Why? Because you don't know with absolute certainty what is going to happen in the next second. So, you live in faith that you will be able to go on successfully.

An example of living in faith is someone who gets on a plane. Then the plane crashes, and he finds that his faith was in something that wasn't actual and real.

Or consider the person who gets into his car and has faith that he will reach his desired destination. Then he dies in a car crash.

Or consider a person who buys a lottery ticket. He never won a thing in his life before. The reason he buys the ticket is that he has a tiny bit of hope, but no faith. The he wins a $million.

Most of these people don't realize they are living in faith, but just like you, they are.

If you want to know what you did wrong, compare what the Bible says with your life. Yes, it may take a bit of study to get most of it.

Ultimately we all choose what we believe.

If you drill down to our core fundamental beliefs you will find a host of "truths" some incoherent some sound. Not everyone is capable of doing this and fewer still actually choose to do it. Ultimately, however, at the foundation of our beliefs is a set of metaphysical Truths.

For the simplest among us this truth may be as basic and as incomplete as what gives me pleasure is good and and what causes me pain is bad. For others the situation is more complex.

If we ground ourselves in an incoherent or incomplete "truth" the idea when expounded upon is self refuting. Maintaining such a falsehood requires that we ourselves become incoherent and fractured either by avoiding deep thought or lying to ourselves. The simpleton in the example above would have great difficulties with the concept that excessive pleasure can be bad and that suffering for a purpose can have great meaning.

Grounding ourselves in Truth that can never be falsified, that is something else entirely. This kind of truth is a foundation. It is something we can build upon.

God cannot be falsified but his existence is not something that you will be able to prove or disprove to your satisfaction it is an apriori Truth. What I find so elegant about this ambiguity is that it is a basic necessity to maintain freedom.

Without such an ambiguity we would not have true choice when it comes to our beliefs. Our situation would be  akin to that of complex robots follow our creators explicit instructions and fulfill our purpose or acknowledge we are defective and rebel against the obvious purpose of our creation.  

Our current situation allows us to freely choose God or reject God. This is far superior as it ultimately leads to a people who have willingly and freely chosen God. It leads to a people who contemplate God not because God demanded it, but because we have freely chosen it.

If you have not had a chance to read it I recommend this essay by Charlton as he articulates these issues with more eloquence then I. See: Metaphysical Attitudes.

Lights in the sky, images projected off of a mirrored dome. The Sun, Moon, stars and planets are all holograms.

Holy back the the future Batman, first it's giants and now this "it looks to me like a cyborg!".



Petrified leg has springs for tendons -- https://youtube.com/watch?v=Re9_OFvTpZQ

I question the idea that there are any "good people". We grade ourselves on a curve, but the existence of others who are worse then us does not make us good.  

If we honestly compare ourselves to a true and perfect good each and every one of us would fall horribly short in comparison.

The belief in God gives us an ideal to strive towards. With God at least we can define good and from that definition comes a reason to improve ourselves and a goal to strive towards. It gives us an ideal that can never be achieved only approximated.

Humans clearly do not deserve an afterlife of any kind. We have not earned one, nor are we in any way fit to inhabit one in our current state. If an afterlife is on offer it could only be through an act of extreme generosity the ultimate charity case.

There are certainly atheist's who behave well by relative human standards and there certainly are religious fanatics and hypocrites who behave very badly. Take away the curve and apply an objective standard of good and evil and I am not at all confident where humanity falls on the scale.

You argue "If a true benevolent God exists then you wouldn't need to believe in him in order to be saved"

This line of thought fails to consider the possibility that the very act of believing in God is transformative. It is possible that it is the act of belief that allows one to be saved not so much via external intervention but from the changes in our essence our souls if you will that become possible once we define our first principles and ground our existence in them.

So Badecker...just so I understand what your trying to say:

You believe that C&E + entropy + complexity = god?? Really? That's your reason for believing in a god?

The sea is huge and mighty, and terrible storms kill many people and sink boats and all the mighty creatures that dwell in its vast depths have therefore convinced me that Poseidon is real.........or I could believe that red + bells + snow = Santa!

You also are trying to fall back on the "Science doesn't understand Religion" routine which is fine....but understanding religion is not what Science has to do...cos it comes down to faith (which is believing in something despite the complete lack of evidence) which goes against everything scientific.

Understanding the Universe is what WE have to do. You religious nuts are very happy to just say "God did it" and that's the end of it.
If curious minds never inquired about the HOW and WHY of things...you wouldn't be sitting in front of your LED-backlit display using thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal displays on your portable laptop connected to a world wide network of fibre optic cables that are the thickness of 0.5mm made of glass and can transmit terabytes if not petabytes of information......none of which we would have today if us heretics had given up cos they were happy with "God did it".

Do you know the one of first female mathematicians (Hypatia 370-415 AD) was dragged out and killed by a christian mob for being a heretic?
Can you imagine how far our society would have progressed if she had flourished? If she had kids and they grew up maths whizs....If all scientific knowledge had been encouraged instead of suppressed...we are  almost 1500 years behind scientifically were we could have been.....thanks to religion.

I agree that rules should follow logic. However, just because we cannot always follow the logic does not mean that the logic is not there.

Take the Sabbath for example. Honoring the Sabbath could be necessary to sustain and propagate religious belief from generation to generation. If a solid ideological/religious substructure necessary to sustain society then the sabbath or a Sabbath equivalent could simply not be optional if one wishes to maintain rather then consume ones society. Fail to honor the Sabbath and the young start to forget and reject their religious foundation. Abandon the religious foundation and the entire society starts to destabilize. Is this happening in the west right now? Time will tell.

You may be correct when you say we are punished for our intelligence. According to Genesis our remotest ancestors exercised their freedom and made a "choice". They obtained/ate/developed sufficient intelligence to have knowledge of good and evil. With this intelligence humans gained the ability to choose evil voluntarily. Every human inherited this "gift" from them.

The "punishment" is the inevitable and logical consequence of the evil humans now freely choose and actively introduce into the world. Why does God allow us to make evil choices? Perhaps he wants us to be free. Freedom necessitates the ability to make choices for better or for worse.

The shills appear to be broken.

Suspend your disbelief for a moment, I dare you.



Giants - Their Bodies Are STILL Here! 15 Minutes Non Stop Proof! -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5snFoe8jMU

The possibility of an afterlife is a binary. There either is one or there is not. Let's proceed from the possibility that a heavenly afterlife exists along the general lines outlined in the Bible. What might its characteristics be?

1) It would probably be perfect from a human perspective.

2) It would allow for meaningful action and creativity. If it did not then it would be less a paradise and more a gilded playpen or cage.

3) Due to #1 and #2 above there is not a single human being worthy of or capable of proper existence in such an afterlife. Even the best of us are far from perfect. We are all full of varying amounts of falsehood, incoherence, and evil which if allowed expression via freedom of action would disrupt a perfect heaven.

4) Therefore before any human being could be allowed freedom of action in a perfect afterlife our deficiencies (falsehood, incoherence, and evil) would first need to be expunged. Yet these deficiencies are an intrinsic part of who we are.

5) Rectifying (burning away) of large portions of ourselves even if they are false, incoherent, and evil would likely be a very painful process. It would probably not be an exaggeration to describe such a process as the burning of the spirit in eternal hellfire.

6) Putting one through a torturous process of this sort could be the greatest act of mercy possible because the alternative would be oblivion and cessation. Purification though painful would potentially allow that what could be saved to be saved.

There is a strong minority view in Christianity that feels that the suffering of a soul in hell is not eternal.

The Seventh-day Adventist believe this.
See: Annihilationism

Even the Pope if recent news articles are to be believed is a advocate of Annihilationism though to my knowledge this is a minority view in the Catholic tradition.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/vatican-scrambles-to-clarify-popes-denial-that-hell-exists

Finally the Jews also believe something like Annihilationism with their views on purgatory.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm


So yes the "arbitrary rules" are freely chosen or rejected. No one is pointing a gun at us. If anything the situation is probably more akin to a drowning man being offered a helping hand. It is up to us to grasp it or push it away.

Approximately all of the things that you and the videos say against religion, fit science better.

Science acknowledges that they have only scratched the surface of that which there is to know. With this acknowledgement they have admitted that they absolutely don't know that the things of Bod and the Bible are not something full of science way beyond what we know.

God reveals Himself in the Bible. Since science doesn't understand God very much, it often rejects Him. But you can find many scientists who accept Him.

Science has no knowledge of any way that cause and effect combined with entropy combined with complexity, as they exist in this universe, could scientifically exist together without God. Yet these three things - C&E, entropy, and complexity - are abundantly visible all over the place without anything to refute them.

This makes the science that says that God does not exist, to not only be an extremely weak science, but it makes science to simply be another false religion when believed this way.

If you are saying your ancestors are God, then we must be in devolution. After all, you aren't able to create anything like they created the universe, if they are God.

Astargath, you are so backward that it's almost unbelievable. Are you trying to tell us that if God took your freedom to go to Hell away from you, you would complain to Him in Heaven, through eternity, about how unfair He was to take your freedom away from you? He isn't going to put up with your complaints in Heaven. You are making your choice. And it looks like you are choosing Hell. If you want freedom, choose Jesus salvation so that you can be free in the only place where joyful freedom will be able to be found... Heaven.

I see you are backwards as usual.

Killing Christians sends them to Heaven where there is more joyful freedom than we can imagine in this life.



He punished His Son, Jesus, on the cross. Unbelievers punish themselves by not accepting Jesus salvation. Of course, since people can barely do anything at all - try growing another arm, sometime - it is God Who gives unbelievers the punishment that they are asking for... God the Great Giver... even though He would rather see the unbeliever choose salvation.

You are so backwards, you are simply stupid.

Do you mean you aren't allowed to do with your property what you will? Do you mean you can't put your dog down if he is sickly and old? How much more God, Who owns everything? I mean, when He puts unbelievers to death, He is keeping them from sinning more, so that they have more to pay for in their eternity in Hell. Such a loving God that He is even blessing those who hate Him.

Stalin alone killed off more than the Crusades could have thought of killing; and that often in the name of paranoia, not religion. And that is only Stalin. The 4 names I mentioned are only a handful of evil people who murder for greed rather than religion. Greed and selfishness killed way more people ever than religion. And most of the time religion stopped the killing.

You have things a bit backward, as usual.

1. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an actor from Jew run Hollywood.
2. The "just 3 holes" experiment à la Eratosthenes of Cyrene assumes a Sun 93 millions miles away. A close Sun @ 3,000 miles away will produce the same results.



BTFO again have jester bunny.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Temujin, and many other murders did what they did because they didn't have religion. The few executions done by people in the name of religion, were done by liars who only said they were doing it for religious purposes. When religious peoples protect themselves by killing others who are harming them, or when they do it to protect other people who are being harmed, there is righteousness in that kind of killing.

Any desiase can  be treated somehow. Bad behavior can be corrected also.