Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Love]

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.

Yes, but saying "plenty of people" doesn't really provide any credibility to your proposition. I, for the most part, have complete faith in the academic peer review system. There are tens of academic historical journals and, indeed, PhD Roman Empire historians who have written plenty of papers on the subject. There is a great deal of historical evidence regarding the practice of crucifixion in the Roman Empire.

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 have actually provided an alternative. It is my belief that Christ's life, his consciousness, his ability to transform the lives of those around him and his core messages of love, peace and charity are vastly more important than his death and the theological interpretation of such. The God that I believe in is a God of infinite consciousness and unconditional love, not an entity that is, in any way, shape or form, interested in destruction or death. To be perfectly honest, I think the glorification of Christ's sacrifice is Satanic and evil; redemptive sacrifice is truly an absolutely hideous idea.

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.

These are very complicated philosophical issues. There are some philosophers who do, indeed, believe that the universe is ultimately a mathematical construct. Thinking about physics as an "invention" is not helpful and makes it sound as though it is artificial and has no credibility; physics has contributed a great deal to the human experience.

Your assertion that general relativity (GR) is more difficult than quantum mechanics (QM) is obviously arguable. Just because you find linear algebra easier than calculus does not mean everybody else does. Also, to state that "quantum mechanics is linear" is a sweeping statement, and is not a view shared by all physicists. I personally find both QM and GR to be extremely counter intuitive.

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?

Indeed, I also find evolution by natural selection to be extremely counter intuitive. In fact, I find quantum mechanics and general relativity easier to comprehend than evolution by natural selection. There are many things in "unguided" evolution that don't make a great deal of sense, such as the aspect of sexual reproduction that you mentioned and also the emergence of subjective consciousness. I think the idea that evolution is unguided asks far too much of human credulity. This is why I believe that evolution is God's chosen method of formation.