The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not even really sure what the question is! You're suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that the laws of physics might not be  uniform. Why would they not be?

The question is this: what can be deduced from the observation that causes are linked with their effects?

[Minimalist]

But, according to you (and your God) that we're born with a dirty, wicked, disgustingly sinful nature fresh from the womb. 
So, there's that to consider.

in the beginning God created everything good and when he created man it was very good. Only when Adam and eve sinned did we inherent a sin nature from our parents.

What are you?  5 years old?

[Whateverist]

in the beginning God created everything good and when he created man it was very good. Only when Adam and eve sinned did we inherent a sin nature from our parents.

What are you?  5 years old?

You must be taking typing skills and speech patterns into account.  Cute, isn't she?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm not even really sure what the question is! You're suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that the laws of physics might not be  uniform. Why would they not be?

The question is this: what can be deduced from the observation that causes are linked with their effects?

That people think physics hasn't advanced since Aristotle's observations about causality?

The truth is, of course, that I know what she meant  to ask. It's one of the last long-standing debates between physicists and theologians (which sometimes includes working physicists), put simply as: "why is there anything rather than nothing?" and/or "why are there describable, consistent laws of physics at all?"

We don't know. Nobody knows. But we have some pretty good ideas. However, since her "you can't account for uniformity" is not only a badly-worded physics question but is obviously a question well beyond her education level, and thus had to have been "handed to her on a platter, for serving cold to those Damned Atheists", so to speak, I didn't feel the need to take it seriously. Apologetic nonsense shoved in my face is bad enough, even when the person is willing/prepared to have a serious discussion of the concepts they are proposing to discuss... but when it's obvious that they view the question as a bullet fired from a gun, which if it misses they will simply reload a new, different bullet to fire my way, I have no reason to take them seriously or treat them with any more dignity than they are showing me.

Tell me truly, Chad... do you honestly think Rekeisha would be able (or willing) to have as serious discussion about the ongoing debate between models by atheist physicists like Krauss or Hartle-Hawking and theist physicists who suggest various anthropic principle arguments like teleology (what I would call teleonomy), and that she is both educated and honest enough to acknowledge weaknesses in her arguments rather than just repeating them at me, over and over, a la  William Lane Craig?

Before I even start to reply to such "easy question, long answer" statements, I must consider the intent of the poster. If it is clear that they are just using such arguments as bullets linked in a machinegun's ammo-belt, there is no point to wasting my time, and I will respond with mere mockery. However, since you have proved to be more educated and thoughtful, I gave you a full reply.

[Minimalist]

It's one of the last long-standing debates between physicists and theologians (which sometimes includes working physicists),

Yet I notice you did not mention "working" theologians.  I guess beating your gums about horseshit is not really work.

[Edwardo Piet]

Top reasons why "just following Jesus" doesn't work:

4)

When yourself and many other followers walk on water with him - the ice breaks and you all drown.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

When it's all said and done people are simply insane, which is the primary reason they believe in all of the assorted BS religions. And since they are insane it's a waste of time discussing religious matters with them because they are not rational humans. The fools actually think that their favorite invisible sky daddy held long conversations with ignorant goat ropers and camel jockeys and that someone was there to record every word like a court reporter.

[Athene]

But, according to you (and your God) that we're born with a dirty, wicked, disgustingly sinful nature fresh from the womb. 
So, there's that to consider.

in the beginning God created everything good and when he created man it was very good. Only when Adam and eve sinned did we inherent a sin nature from our parents.

Yes,I'm familiar with the fable.
Your God determined that all of humanity would be afflicted with a sinful nature due to the disobedience that occurred in the Garden, despite having absolutely no connection to the original sin. That makes your God completely responsible for man's fallible and sinful nature, like it or not.

[Delicate]

The question is this: what can be deduced from the observation that causes are linked with their effects?

That people think physics hasn't advanced since Aristotle's observations about causality?

The truth is, of course, that I know what she meant  to ask. It's one of the last long-standing debates between physicists and theologians (which sometimes includes working physicists), put simply as: "why is there anything rather than nothing?" and/or "why are there describable, consistent laws of physics at all?"

We don't know. Nobody knows. But we have some pretty good ideas. However, since her "you can't account for uniformity" is not only a badly-worded physics question but is obviously a question well beyond her education level, and thus had to have been "handed to her on a platter, for serving cold to those Damned Atheists", so to speak, I didn't feel the need to take it seriously. Apologetic nonsense shoved in my face is bad enough, even when the person is willing/prepared to have a serious discussion of the concepts they are proposing to discuss... but when it's obvious that they view the question as a bullet fired from a gun, which if it misses they will simply reload a new, different bullet to fire my way, I have no reason to take them seriously or treat them with any more dignity than they are showing me.

Tell me truly, Chad... do you honestly think Rekeisha would be able (or willing) to have as serious discussion about the ongoing debate between models by atheist physicists like Krauss or Hartle-Hawking and theist physicists who suggest various anthropic principle arguments like teleology (what I would call teleonomy), and that she is both educated and honest enough to acknowledge weaknesses in her arguments rather than just repeating them at me, over and over, a la  William Lane Craig?

Before I even start to reply to such "easy question, long answer" statements, I must consider the intent of the poster. If it is clear that they are just using such arguments as bullets linked in a machinegun's ammo-belt, there is no point to wasting my time, and I will respond with mere mockery. However, since you have proved to be more educated and thoughtful, I gave you a full reply.

I'd like to hear you answer the question of how to account for uniformity.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That people think physics hasn't advanced since Aristotle's observations about causality?

The truth is, of course, that I know what she meant  to ask. It's one of the last long-standing debates between physicists and theologians (which sometimes includes working physicists), put simply as: "why is there anything rather than nothing?" and/or "why are there describable, consistent laws of physics at all?"

We don't know. Nobody knows. But we have some pretty good ideas. However, since her "you can't account for uniformity" is not only a badly-worded physics question but is obviously a question well beyond her education level, and thus had to have been "handed to her on a platter, for serving cold to those Damned Atheists", so to speak, I didn't feel the need to take it seriously. Apologetic nonsense shoved in my face is bad enough, even when the person is willing/prepared to have a serious discussion of the concepts they are proposing to discuss... but when it's obvious that they view the question as a bullet fired from a gun, which if it misses they will simply reload a new, different bullet to fire my way, I have no reason to take them seriously or treat them with any more dignity than they are showing me.

Tell me truly, Chad... do you honestly think Rekeisha would be able (or willing) to have as serious discussion about the ongoing debate between models by atheist physicists like Krauss or Hartle-Hawking and theist physicists who suggest various anthropic principle arguments like teleology (what I would call teleonomy), and that she is both educated and honest enough to acknowledge weaknesses in her arguments rather than just repeating them at me, over and over, a la  William Lane Craig?

Before I even start to reply to such "easy question, long answer" statements, I must consider the intent of the poster. If it is clear that they are just using such arguments as bullets linked in a machinegun's ammo-belt, there is no point to wasting my time, and I will respond with mere mockery. However, since you have proved to be more educated and thoughtful, I gave you a full reply.

I'd like to hear you answer the question of how to account for uniformity.

Since you apparently didn't read what I wrote, last time, I'll just quote myself, above.

Edit to Add: You can also click the "William Lane Craig" link in the above, since Dr. Carroll sums it up better than I could have, in his blog post and in his video debate with WLC.