Christianity Is The BEST Religion....

[LadyForCamus]

God is not real. Therefore, god is not a fact, god is fiction. 

---

/thread

---

and so is any other argument for god you try to make.

---

---

Hence why it's referred to as having faith in God, you need to get your boi Grandizer on board.

Is there anything a person can’t believe in based on faith, Huggy?

[vulcanlogician]

Hence why it's referred to as having faith in God, you need to get your boi Grandizer on board.

Is there anything a person can’t believe in based on faith, Huggy?

Abiogenesis from the sound of things.

[Foxaèr]

Hence why it's referred to as having faith in God, you need to get your boi Grandizer on board.

Is there anything a person can’t believe in based on faith, Huggy?

That's the problem with faith; it allows for the belief in anything, no matter how illogical and unrealistic.

[The Valkyrie]

I believe I'll have a beer.

[Simon Moon]

Hence why it's referred to as having faith in God, you need to get your boi Grandizer on board.

Is there anything a person can’t believe in based on faith, Huggy?

Let me also add some other questions for Huggy.

1.5 billion Muslims also have faith that their god exists. 1 billion Hindus also have faith that their god exists.

So, tell us, how can faith be a reliable path to truth, if it can lead billions of people to the wrong god?

And here we are, unconvinced that any gods exist, and do not find faith to be a virtue (for me, faith is tantamount to gullibility), with equally unevidenced theistic claims to judge.

[polymath257]

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Mass and energy are related, with the rest mass of an object having an equivalent energy which, when added to the other energy *is* conserved. But, as I said, energy can be converted to mass and vice versa.


From *your* article:
Matter is composed of such things as atoms, electrons, neutrons, and protons. It has intrinsic or rest mass. In the limited range of recognized experience of the nineteenth century it was found that such rest mass is conserved. Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity showed that it corresponds to an equivalent amount of rest energy. This means that it can be converted to or from equivalent amounts of other (non-material) forms of energy, for example kinetic energy, potential energy, and electromagnetic radiant energy. When this happens, as recognized in twentieth century experience, rest mass is not conserved, unlike the mass or total energy. All forms of energy contribute to the total mass and total energy.

Even this fails in general relativity. Again, from *your* article:
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.[23] The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.

Now, you did not address the central question: that life is NOT a type of energy. So it is not conserved. Life is a *process* of conversion of energy. Such processes can stop without violating conservation of energy. In essence, whatever energy is *associated* with life is dissipated as heat (a form of energy).

*Emphasis mine*

I simply stated that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" which you clearly did not agree with, since you stated that it could be destroyed...

Transformation does not equate to destruction.

In a nuclear bomb, a small bit of mass is converted into energy. In nuclear reactions, it is common for energy to be converted into mass.

You were claiming that life is a form of energy and hence would have to be conserved. But, if it is *transformed* into, say, heat, or chemical energy, that is quite enough to satisfy the conservation of energy. So the conservation of energy has *nothing* to do with whether life comes from life.

Furthermore, because of the aspects of general relativity (see above), it isn't possible, often, to even define a 'total energy'. This is one of the reasons it is possible to get a 'universe from nothing'.

---

But Huggs, isn't that what you believe too?  Unless you think God is a kind of life, i.e., biologically based being.

Nope, if God is light, that makes him energy, which makes life energy, which means that life has always existed. Does not the Bible state that before the world was even made the the sons of God shouted for joy?

Nope. Even if energy has always existed, that doesn't mean *life* has always existed. First, since life isn't a form of energy. Second, because there is no guarantee energy will stay the same *type* of energy. Life converting into heat, or electrical energy would be just as good.

Also, light sn't a supernatural entity. It is an electromagnetic wave. So, unless you are lcaiming your deity is an electromagnetic wave, your deity cannot be light.

Finally, light isn't, itself, a form of energy. It *has* energy, just like mass does. But it is not, itself energy. It has other properties than just its energy, like its momentum and angular momentum.

In other words, you have terribly confused God, light, energy, and life. None of the four is equal to any of the others.

[Cecelia]

Nah, Christianity is just as bad as most of the other religions.

Wicca seems okay I guess. I don't know much about it, but their only moral rule seems to be "As long as you aren't hurting anyone, do whatever you want."

I mean it's just as evidence lacking as the rest, but at least they don't try to mostly dictate how people live their lives. And they certainly don't knock on your door asking if you've heard the good news about the Triple Goddess.

[Godscreated]

 Yet you believe in evolution. Scientist say that the universe is destroying itself, that this galaxy is making few stars because it's running out of material for such activity and supposedly this is one of the younger galaxies. So if the universe is on a path to total destruction then why on this one little planet would evolution be in effect. Goes against all logic.

GC

Did you know that our solar system is really part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that is being absorbed by the larger Milky Way Galaxy?  If you kept up on science you would know such things.  
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/26earth.htm

http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html

http://annesastronomynews.com/wp-content...ptical.jpg

---

 Science couldn't possibly know that and I know it is assumed that the Milky Way has absorbed more than one dwarf galaxy and that isn't knowable either. It's all guess work to build up a scientific fairy tale. The contradictions in astrophysics is outrageous and laughable. Scientist can't even come to an agreement on whether black holes exist or not.

GC

[Astreja]

Science couldn't possibly know that and I know it is assumed that the Milky Way has absorbed more than one dwarf galaxy and that isn't knowable either. It's all guess work to build up a scientific fairy tale. The contradictions in astrophysics is outrageous and laughable. Scientist can't even come to an agreement on whether black holes exist or not.

You're just butt-hurt because science has real answers, while you're stuck with a god who got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ three chapters into Genesis.  

Now be a good little god-bot and get to work on solving that "yes, no, maybe" prayer quality control problem.

[Godscreated]

Yet you believe in evolution.

I don't have to "believe" in it.  My brother is a geneticist.  I've seen his work.

You mean you see what you want to see, evolution if it were a real thing would take to long for a person to see it in their life time.

I am convinced, based on the laboratory evidence that I've seen and the papers that I have read, that genetic lines do indeed change (with replication or suppression of specific alleles in response to the chemical makeup of the immediate environment, via stochastic switching), eventually diverging into separate species.

You are talking about man's manipulation, that has nothing to do with nature. Creationist have challenged evolution so strongly that evolutionary science is continually being change to divert attention away from the fact that no matter what you might want to see DNA can not gain new information.

Scientist say that the universe is destroying itself, that this galaxy is making few stars because it's running out of material for such activity and supposedly this is one of the younger galaxies. So if the universe is on a path to total destruction then why on this one little planet would evolution be in effect. Goes against all logic.

The reason it's going "against all logic" for you might have something to do with the fact that you're trying to solve a biochemical problem with astrophysics.

I'm not trying to solve biochemical anything with astrophysics, if the universe is destroying itself as they say then all of the universe should be headed down hill, as you would say everything must obey the laws of physics.

GC[/quote]