(August 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: If it was not created I have not seen evidence that shows how anything tangible can come from nothingness.  Postulating  multiverses and mixing in large random numbers and claiming it merely happened seems like an extremely weak argument parallel with many religious statements often seen here.

I didn't say anything about stuff coming from nothingness. On the contrary, it's theists who tend to believe that to be the case when they say that God made stuff come from nothingness. I personally believe the cosmos has always been, whatever the hell it may be like. This observable universe is probably not on its own.

And the multiverse is not exactly unreasonable. Like I said, there seem to be quite some hints that there may be other universes (dark matter, dark energy, quantum mechanics, etc.). So it's not like I'm postulating some multiverse out of nothing. There is good reason to at least seriously consider its possibility.

Also, you don't seem to like random numbers, or randomness in general, it seems. You want things to be in a certain order, following certain a pattern, just like those who believed the earth was at the center of the universe, with the sun revolving around it. But, as you know, reality is not like that.

I agree! The observable universe is not on its own as you state. It appears that dark matter is present but exists as another layer rather than as a separate universe.

I enjoy astronomy and the study of such things. I am not close minded to the theory of the multiverse personally, however it looks more idea than substance. String theory showed some promise but did not withstand peer review and answer the correlations of physical laws and math. Way above my head but I have read into it.

It's not that I dislike randomness, I was once upon a time quite a gambler and enjoyed games of chance and the theory of large numbers. Looking at our surroundings and attempting to understand things based on what we actually can see, measure and test, does not seem to be an exercise in futility.

On a deeper level, I do believe assigning God to our lives can give us more meaning and value. I do not see that humans do a good job of this on our own by much of the conflict, death and destruction in the world. The original vision of the world through the lens of the creator was perfect and good. Hopefully it will return to that.

Thank you, I'm glad you like my video

Science is based on pragmatic assumptions, you are correct. They are however usually either necessary or self correcting. In the first case, it's preferable to see what we think we can learn, rather than abandoning any pursuit of knowledge due to lack of absolute certainty. This isn't the same as making unnecessary assumptions, especially when our conclusion is simply those assumptions restated.

As for the beginnings of our reality, science has not been able to answer this question. Things appear to approach a singularity, but it's not been confirmed that this is actually the case. And applying evidence about what happens inside our reality to reality itself is called the fallacy of composition. The whole does not necessarily share any qualities of its parts.

There is no evidence that a creator was involved. There is no evidence that it was not. It's pure speculation, both ways. It's not sensible to begin with one unfounded assumption like "god" and expect people to prove you wrong; that's the argument from ignorance.

I have another video which I think addresses all this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inw1fNItjdU

Also, the assumptions made by science are not generally dangerous either.

For example, assuming what we observe is in some way "real" is not harmful. If it turns out that it's not real, then what has anyone lost?

Assuming predictive models validated by evidence are useful is again not harmful, and is also self correcting.

I'm thinking of doing another video about my thoughts on the word "real" at some point. It's a very difficult word.

(July 12, 2016 at 5:15 pm)robvalue Wrote: We have loads of different theistic religions in the world right now. And every one of those claims to be the "real religion". They have it right, and everyone else has it wrong. They're worshipping the real god(s), in the correct way.

What would we expect to see from this? Let's pretend that one of these current religions is the real one.

Wouldn't it be absurdly obvious which one this is? Wouldn't those following the correct religion have some sort of noticable advantage? If God is doing anything at all in return for the worship it is receiving, wouldn't this be clear to all?

Your question shows you misunderstand Christianity. All of the hundreds of promises for Christians are internal to them, personal. For example:

Matt 11:28: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. "
II Cor 5:17 "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come"
Eph 1:3 "We have been blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ "
I John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness”
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Gal 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. " (aka fruits of the spirit)
I John 1:3-4 "That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete."
John 14:15-17 "“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."

...and hundreds more...

So the only "noticeable advantage" that you should see is within the life of a Christian. 

Quote:What I see is a bunch of people all claiming to have this amazing being on their side, yet none of them are any better off than any others because of it.

How can you say that none are better off? By what standard? Isn't a changed life consisting of the fruits of the spirit, a relationship with God and eternal life 'better off'? 

Quote:I can only conclude that either none of them have it right, or God's blessings are so insignificant that I don't even notice them.

You are looking for some sort of physical advantage--which is not promised--so your conclusions are based on faulty premises. This is evidenced in the very first Christians, the disciples themselves. Most of them had unpleasant physical lives and deaths. Yet they obviously thought themselves 'better off'.

Quote:How can you say that none are better off? By what standard? Isn't a changed life consisting of the fruits of the spirit, a relationship with God and eternal life 'better off'?

Being a delusional fuckwit makes you "better off?"

No thanks. You have swallowed way too much Kool-Aid.

(August 9, 2016 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 5:15 pm)robvalue Wrote: We have loads of different theistic religions in the world right now. And every one of those claims to be the "real religion". They have it right, and everyone else has it wrong. They're worshipping the real god(s), in the correct way.

What would we expect to see from this? Let's pretend that one of these current religions is the real one.

Wouldn't it be absurdly obvious which one this is? Wouldn't those following the correct religion have some sort of noticable advantage? If God is doing anything at all in return for the worship it is receiving, wouldn't this be clear to all?

How can you say that none are better off? By what standard? Isn't a changed life consisting of the fruits of the spirit, a relationship with God and eternal life 'better off'?

How is it better off? What's so special exactly about being "born again"? If it's just words and beliefs, fuck it.

Holier than thou smugness. Still a delusion.

(August 9, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: How can you say that none are better off? By what standard? Isn't a changed life consisting of the fruits of the spirit, a relationship with God and eternal life 'better off'?

How is it better off? What's so special exactly about being "born again"? If it's just words and beliefs, fuck it.

Perhaps to you. For the people that believe it, they would say they were objectively better off than without the belief/experience. So, the premise of the OP was faulty and the conclusion drawn was wrong.

(August 7, 2016 at 3:59 am)KJV-reader Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 6:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: You would have to examine why Christianity is more compelling than the rest. I articulated my thoughts on this in a thread not too long ago.

I've just read your first post in that thread (don't think were allowed to re-open old threads).
Trouble is you've totally skirted over the evil parts of Christianity, you know hell and damnation for none believers. Even hell and damnation say for different type of believers (cat-o-lics for Protestants and pro-testicles for Catholics)

I was answering the question in the thread title: Why do Christians become Christians? I do not think that the reason Christians become Christians is because of 'the evil parts of Christianity' (as you put it). I don't understand (or want to) your last sentence.