Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[Subduction Zone]

I'm working on a laptop with mass and energy, to respond to your good self, who is made of mass and energy. Since mass and energy cannot be created, how did the mass and energy get here?

You are ignoring an important fact. You can look this up, what is the total measured energy of the universe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with the Bible, people are intrinsically both good and bad, Jekyll and Hyde. "People will do bad things" is an understatement when you consider the thousands of statues of law codes in every city and county. Jesus died for a good reason--IMHO, blood atonement for human sin.

The 990 who don't steal bikes lie, lust, covet, cheat... Paul describes in Romans 7 how the Law informed him of his state, since EVERYONE covets.

I love how you are simply acknowledging my initial point that started this, and are thereby validating my bigger point concerning how christianity is merely a gigantic guilt trip.

It first convinces you that you are "broken" and in need of "fixing" and then conveniently provides the only "fix".

Oldest scam method known to man kind.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I love how you are simply acknowledging my initial point that started this, and are thereby validating my bigger point concerning how christianity is merely a gigantic guilt trip.

It first convinces you that you are "broken" and in need of "fixing" and then conveniently provides the only "fix".

Oldest scam method known to man kind.

If you and I are without sin, Christianity isn't a guilt trip, and may be safely ignored. You seem to be acknowledging that you are a sinner.

 

[night912]

I'm working on a laptop with mass and energy, to respond to your good self, who is made of mass and energy. Since mass and energy cannot be created, how did the mass and energy get here?

Explain how it was created.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you and I are without sin, Christianity isn't a guilt trip, and may be safely ignored. You seem to be acknowledging that you are a sinner.

"sin", as defined by the very same christian religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Explain how it was created.

? If the universe was not created supernaturally, are you saying it is eternal? If it's eternal, that likewise violates the Law of Conservation.

So is the universe supernaturally eternal or supernaturally created?

 

[BilliardsBall]

"sin", as defined by the very same christian religion.

No, as defined by you, using the term "guilt trip". If prostitution, adultery, theft, dishonoring God, etc. are without sin and guilt, that you'd say the Bible can put no guilt trip against you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

? If the universe was not created supernaturally, are you saying it is eternal? If it's eternal, that likewise violates the Law of Conservation.

So is the universe supernaturally eternal or supernaturally created?

The weirdest part of this is that you seem to think that positing some eternal god somehow solves any of these "problems" you bring up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, as defined by you, using the term "guilt trip".

/facepalm

No, as defined by the christian religion. It's part of the guilt trip.
It declares you "broken" -on its own terms- and then conveniently provides the only "fix".

If prostitution, adultery, theft, dishonoring God, etc. are without sin and guilt

Most of them actually are.
Again, your religion is doing all the defining here.
It's part of the scam.

, that you'd say the Bible can put no guilt trip against you.

You make zero sense.
This is no more or less then psychological gymnastic just to avoid having to face the obvious.

 

[night912]

? If the universe was not created supernaturally, are you saying it is eternal?

Asking a question isn't presenting evidence. Your question is a false dichotomy. And no, I'm not saying that the universe is eternal. What I'm actually saying is, present the evidence for your claim. You made an assertion that the universe was supernaturally created, so first, present your evidence that the was universe, then you can present your evidence that the supernaturally created universe violates the Law of Conservation.

I answered your question, now how about you not continue with your dodging and present your evidence.

If it's eternal, that likewise violates the Law of Conservation.

Please, teach me how it violates the law.

So is the universe supernaturally eternal or supernaturally created?

You tell me, since you claimed to know the answer to that question. You claimed that it was created, so present your evidence. Or are you now admitting that you don't know the answer.

I think a more important question to ask here is, are you going to present your evidence for your claim or just continue on dodging and shifting the burden of proof?

I'll make an assumption and say that you are not going to present your evidence and will continue to dodge and/or ask me questions in order to shift the burden of proof on to me.

That is my assumption of what you are going to do. So I challenge you to prove me wrong or prove that I'm right.

BTW,
Remaining silent is only one method, amongst several, in which a person can do in order to dodge the situation at hand. Changing the subject would be another way. So is giving an answer that's invalid to what the question is contextually asking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The weirdest part of this is that you seem to think that positing some eternal god somehow solves any of these "problems" you bring up.

No, the strange part is how YOU keep putting God in the gap:

If the universe was not created supernaturally, are you saying it is eternal? If it's eternal, that likewise violates the Law of Conservation.

So is the universe supernaturally eternal or supernaturally created?

 

[BilliardsBall]

/facepalm

No, as defined by the christian religion. It's part of the guilt trip.
It declares you "broken" -on its own terms- and then conveniently provides the only "fix".



Most of them actually are.
Again, your religion is doing all the defining here.
It's part of the scam.



You make zero sense.
This is no more or less then psychological gymnastic just to avoid having to face the obvious.

"Broken on its own terms?"

So theft, murder and adultery are "subjective, arbitrary terms"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Asking a question isn't presenting evidence. Your question is a false dichotomy. And no, I'm not saying that the universe is eternal. What I'm actually saying is, present the evidence for your claim. You made an assertion that the universe was supernaturally created, so first, present your evidence that the was universe, then you can present your evidence that the supernaturally created universe violates the Law of Conservation.

I answered your question, now how about you not continue with your dodging and present your evidence.


Please, teach me how it violates the law.


You tell me, since you claimed to know the answer to that question. You claimed that it was created, so present your evidence. Or are you now admitting that you don't know the answer.

I think a more important question to ask here is, are you going to present your evidence for your claim or just continue on dodging and shifting the burden of proof?

I'll make an assumption and say that you are not going to present your evidence and will continue to dodge and/or ask me questions in order to shift the burden of proof on to me.

That is my assumption of what you are going to do. So I challenge you to prove me wrong or prove that I'm right.

BTW,
Remaining silent is only one method, amongst several, in which a person can do in order to dodge the situation at hand. Changing the subject would be another way. So is giving an answer that's invalid to what the question is contextually asking.

Your dogmatism belies the fact that a number of prominent physicists agree--as well as a number of more honest RF skeptics--that when the BB expanded it violated natural law. You're acting as if you're unaware that quantum mechanics is hand-waved at the violation, so I'll put it in lay terms:

Mass/energy including over very selves CAN neither be created nor destroyed. Almost every cosmologist rejects eternal universe, oscillating and steady state theories for their obvious violations of conservation and entropy.

All I've done is invite you to tell me how the everything got here and filled the no-thing, WITHOUT putting God in the gap. A high school student can review current cosmology theory and see how it aligns with Genesis.

Is the universe impersonal or personalized in its appearance to you? I see beauty even when looking at macro- and micro-images, I see design everywhere. Modern scientists debate how intricate designs of biological life and cosmology arose, but one thing is clear--the existence of the universe is impossible apart from a suspension of known natural law.

I can try to respond to this once I understand what you've meant here:

"You made an assertion that the universe was supernaturally created, so first, present your evidence that the was universe, then you can present your evidence that the supernaturally created universe violates the Law of Conservation."

 

[night912]

Your dogmatism belies the fact that a number of prominent physicists agree--as well as a number of more honest RF skeptics--that when the BB expanded it violated natural law. You're acting as if you're unaware that quantum mechanics is hand-waved at the violation, so I'll put it in lay terms:

Mass/energy including over very selves CAN neither be created nor destroyed. Almost every cosmologist rejects eternal universe, oscillating and steady state theories for their obvious violations of conservation and entropy.

All I've done is invite you to tell me how the everything got here and filled the no-thing, WITHOUT putting God in the gap. A high school student can review current cosmology theory and see how it aligns with Genesis.

Is the universe impersonal or personalized in its appearance to you? I see beauty even when looking at macro- and micro-images, I see design everywhere. Modern scientists debate how intricate designs of biological life and cosmology arose, but one thing is clear--the existence of the universe is impossible apart from a suspension of known natural law.

I can try to respond to this once I understand what you've meant here:

"You made an assertion that the universe was supernaturally created, so first, present your evidence that the was universe, then you can present your evidence that the supernaturally created universe violates the Law of Conservation."

You just proved that my assumption was correct.

I'll add one thing to the list, strawman argument.

I'm not saying that the universe is eternal. What I'm actually saying is, present the evidence for your claim. You made an assertion that the universe was supernaturally created, so first, present your evidence that the was universe, then you can present your evidence that the supernaturally created

BTW,
Remaining silent is only one method, amongst several, in which a person can do in order to dodge the situation at hand. Changing the subject would be another way. So is giving an answer that's invalid to what the question is contextually asking

So I asked you to present your evidence for your claim that the universe was supernaturally created and that the supernaturally created universe violates the Law of Conservation.

And you responded by telling me what the Law of Conservation is, or says. That's not what I asked.

But thanks for telling me what you think what the Law of Conservation is. By you doing that, I now know that you are mistaken/misinformed/misunderstanding the Law of Conservation. You only stated, in layman terms, an important part of that law, but that's only the first part of the law.

A high school student can review current cosmology theory and see how it aligns with Genesis.

I can accept and understand why a high school student can come to that conclusion. But a college graduate like yourself coming to that conclusion did confused me and made me wonder why, until just now.

So to put it in layman terms that even the majority of high school students can understand, here's what the Law of Conservation says:

In an isolated system, energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You just proved that my assumption was correct.

I'll add one thing to the list, strawman argument.




So I asked you to present your evidence for your claim that the universe was supernaturally created and that the supernaturally created universe violates the Law of Conservation.

And you responded by telling me what the Law of Conservation is, or says. That's not what I asked.

But thanks for telling me what you think what the Law of Conservation is. By you doing that, I now know that you are mistaken/misinformed/misunderstanding the Law of Conservation. You only stated, in layman terms, an important part of that law, but that's only the first part of the law.


I can accept and understand why a high school student can come to that conclusion. But a college graduate like yourself coming to that conclusion did confused me and made me wonder why, until just now.

So to put it in layman terms that even the majority of high school students can understand, here's what the Law of Conservation says:

In an isolated system, energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form.

Yes, I can light a playing card on fire and have it become a small amount of ash and some heat and light energy that dissipates.

I'll help you on the other matter:

The sunshine is coming onto my hands through a window as I type this morning. The sun's mass was impossible to create, the sun's energy was impossible to create, the sun's atoms were impossible to create. The atoms of the sun got here by a violation of a natural law, called a supra- or super-natural event:

1) Please tell me how the sun's atoms got here without violating the Law of Conservation

2) Please do not use the God word or put God in the gap here, I'm not doing so

 

[night912]

Yes, I can light a playing card on fire and have it become a small amount of ash and some heat and light energy that dissipates.

I'll help you on the other matter:

The sunshine is coming onto my hands through a window as I type this morning. The sun's mass was impossible to create, the sun's energy was impossible to create, the sun's atoms were impossible to create. The atoms of the sun got here by a violation of a natural law, called a supra- or super-natural event:

1) Please tell me how the sun's atoms got here without violating the Law of Conservation

2) Please do not use the God word or put God in the gap here, I'm not doing so

You already proven that my assumption was correct, there's no need to do again. The the offer still stands, if you want to prove that I was wrong. Just present your evidence.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

In basic terms, some tenets compared/contrasted. Understand the six points below underpin what "educated" people in the West are taught:

1. We can't know whether or not God exists, so it's up to humans to solve our own problems.
* Jesus Christ is source and power for problem solving

2. Research, science, and education hold the keys to human progress.
* Acknowledge God for giving us these tools from the human mind

3. Humans got here through evolution and we continue to evolve.
* Man has a propensity to behave as a degenerate, and needs, therefore, Christian regeneration

4. Humans develop their own moral understanding of right and wrong without the need of divine assistance.
* Babysit children and see this process at work! LOL

5. We should not judge people who arrive at moral conclusions that differ from our own.
* Christians should not judge people with different moral conclusions, but we can discuss and debate the issues

6. The problems we are facing today require governments throughout the world to work together in cooperation with one another.


* The coming one-world government, like all empires, will be at its root antithetical to God

I take exception to number 3: We've reached the apex of our evolution, due only to devolve from here forth. Proof? Turn to your religion.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

Speedo's look good on people not cut out for them.
Just to tilt the Earth's axis abit more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You already proven that my assumption was correct, there's no need to do again. The the offer still stands, if you want to prove that I was wrong. Just present your evidence.

You are dancing, but I see the steps:

How the Big Bang Theory Works

 

[BilliardsBall]

I take exception to number 3: We've reached the apex of our evolution, due only to devolve from here forth. Proof? Turn to your religion.

I'll respond after you rephrase for clarity. You're not making sense (that I can see).