Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Aractus]

Well, I view the crucifixion from a historical perspective. The Roman Empire used this method of execution regularly during the period in which Jesus was tortured.

Well it seems we have little disagreement here. Plenty of people over the years have cited the lack of physical evidence for the massive number of crucifixions talked about in ancient literiture, and what's interesting is that these are the same arguments that get made against things like the Exodus and other Biblical events for which there is "little physical evidence". I'm pleased to see you don't defult your position to neo-sceptisism.

Its significance to orthodox Christians is due to its theological interpretation, to which most Christians subscribe because of The Bible. Also, have you never asked yourself the following question? What kind of an omnibenevolent God would use horrendous sacrifice and torture in order to redeem the human situation? There is no getting around it, this would be an extremely "evil" God. Redemptive sacrifice is just an absolutely ridiculous and hideous concept to me.

Often the topic of redemptive sacrifice is insufficiently explained by priests who assert that God is "forced" to punish us contrary to His wish that we instead enter Life.

Nevertheless you still failed to provide the alternative.

I just do not count The Bible as valid historical evidence.

And yet here's where the bias comes in. How can contemporary topics be mythical?

Physics is not an invention of humanity, and whether or not mathematics was invented is still an ongoing discussion in the philosophy of mathematics. Physics, once termed "natural philosophy", is a field of study used by human beings to understand the fundamental laws of nature. Fundamental to the scientific method, physicists not only use mathematics, they also formulate hypotheses, make predictions and test whether or not the real world reflects the predictions made in the hypothesis. In essence, the real goal in contemporary science is to try and disprove a theory; if it cannot be disproved, this strengthens the validity of the current theory. For example, biologists have tried to disprove evolution by natural selection hundreds of times, but every attempt has failed thus far.

I think you need to display some humility. It is rather arrogant and pretentious to state that quantum mechanics is "embarrassingly easy to understand", unless, of course, you're an absolute genius in the fields of mathematics and theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics is notoriously difficult to understand, even to Nobel laureates who have/had worked in the field all of their lives, like Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, for example. Are you claiming that you find quantum mechanics easier to understand than these individuals? If so, I think you are delusional.

So we didn't invent physics. The universe really performs calculations - like a computer - to function? That's the only way it can operate according to our "physics". Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model of the theorized linear substructure of the universe. It is, as I just said, linear and therefore easy to understand. General Relativity on the other hand isn't linear. GR is far more counter-intuitive. Neither is an accurate description of our actual universe. If you actually believe in wave-particle duality you're an idiot.

Your example of evolution is a poor one. We know that evolution, as we commonly understand it occurs in nature. We also know that life self-starts, this is also evident. We have extremely poor quality theories on abiogenesis to explain it, and the fact is we haven't a clue how it started. We also haven't a clue as to how sexual reproduction evolved - or for that matter why. None of the benefits from it sufficiently offset the "cost" associated with it, it's also counterintuitive to those who follow neo-darwinism and the "selfish gene" theorized by Dawkins. Yet our present theories on Evolution do an embarrassingly poor job of understanding nature, let alone abiogenesis. How do you build a self-replicating organic structure from scratch in such a way that the process is an inevitable part of physics?