wich religion would you choose and why??????

[nk07ki30]

Christianity because my mom raised me to believe in him.

 

[minamoto]

Easy i choose Tobidara Clan
but between the 3 i guess id choose Christianity because deus vult

thx for chosing teh tobidara clan bro..ipromise u won't be dizpointed

 

[Princess Kaguya]

Eh, can I choose Kaguyaism?

 

[PT1990]

None. But if had to pick islam would be my least favorite option. Why? Becuase its still in middle ages.

 

[Our Lord Sasuke]

I find it utterly incredible that in literally every point you make you feel the need to insert red herrings and attacks to some strawman versions of theism. You must indeed find these kinds of arguments very powerful, but the truth is that the dishonesty of this strategy is only comparable to its hopelessness.

You say that we cannot know for certain how the universe came into being and I actually agree, but then you proceed to state that it's a possibility that it arose out of nothing via quantum particles. But we actually know that the phenomenon you're talking about is actually part of what is called quantum fluctuation. Does quantum fluctuation have particles popping in and out of existence? Not in the slightest.

So all you're saying is that maybe the universe arose from preexisting quantum fields, but in that case, those too would require an explanation of their existence if you want to pursue your case to a point of theological significance.

Plus, you gave no answer to the whole nothing = quantum vacuum equivocation. Krauss responded to similar criticisms by saying: "what I care about is the nothing of reality, and if the nothing of reality is full of stuff then I'll go away with that". Like, really? Nothing full of stuff?

All you said to defend your position was that Carroll said that absolute nothing never existed, but remember how that, if put in context, does you little favor and, on the contrary, is a danger for the model Krauss defend and you support, in which the universe is supposed to have had a beginning, whereas Carroll disagrees.

You ask if I think that Hawking and co. have never thought of the possibility of the existence of God. I don't care, to be honest, because pretty much all of the gentlemen you named have shown a pretty messed up conception of God, and utter disdain for subjects such as philosophy and theology (Carroll being the exception here). In any case, not relevant.

You say that science works to render God not necessary anymore. Really? The last time I heard something similar was from Ken Ham in his Bill Nye debate. Of course he was complaining about that instead of being triumphant as you are, but do you really want me to buy that scientists are some sort of a freemasonic lodge that work day and night for the sake of some positivistic utopia? Including those who believe in God and those who aren't interested in the subject? That's plain conspiracy theory.

You ask me what God was doing before creating the universe. The obvious answer is that one of God's attributes is transcendence, so by definition He's outside of time. In any case, if time itself began with the universe, there would be no time to wait in the first place.

It's not correct to add new kind of words to try to understand universe without a proof.
The "transcendent" word, doesn't even exist in a dictionary textbook of the quantum field theory or general relativity. This is what Carroll said, this kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago.

First, I disagree and don't believe in the hypothesis that the universe, has popped from a fluctuation, is just a hypothesis which suggests it is possible, but no one is sure, we must take seriously any model that appears to us or we discover it and you can make an update when new things are understood.

If you read Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing", you would have noticed when he said that if you try to find out what was the origin of the cause of the universe you risk find an infinite regress. Again we don't know if the laws of nature are unique or not, if they were all the time there. I know what quantum fluctuations are, I know that they need I pre-existent fields or a space-time. Maybe is a vast multiverse there.. the eternal inflation suggest strong is possible to one.
These hypotheses and theories are contradictory and may seem incorrect because they are not complete, they are based only on our recent observations and knowledge.
Science never said that they know the truth, but many times, theists are sure 100% that God exists and has caused the universe without resorting to anything else other than their personal beliefs just as evidence. :|

I never said that I know God doesn't exists, I do not believe in him because I do not see it necessary as long as science makes the effort to understand the reality we live in.

Also do not expect your senses and perceptions to work in trying to understand the quantum world. There are abstract phenomena very hard to be understood with our Newtonian perceptions.

 

[Deadlift]

It's not correct to add new kind of words to try to understand universe without a proof.
The "transcendent" word, doesn't even exist in a dictionary textbook of the quantum field theory or general relativity. This is what Carroll said, this kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago.

First, I disagree and don't believe in the hypothesis that the universe, has popped from a fluctuation, is just a hypothesis which suggests it is possible, but no one is sure, we must take seriously any model that appears to us or we discover it and you can make an update when new things are understood.

If you read Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing", you would have noticed when he said that if you try to find out what was the origin of the cause of the universe you risk find an infinite regress. Again we don't know if the laws of nature are unique or not, if they were all the time there. I know what quantum fluctuations are, I know that they need I pre-existent fields or a space-time. Maybe is a vast multiverse there.. the eternal inflation suggest strong is possible to one.
These hypotheses and theories are contradictory and may seem incorrect because they are not complete, they are based only on our recent observations and knowledge.
Science never said that they know the truth, but many times, theists are sure 100% that God exists and has caused the universe without resorting to anything else other than their personal beliefs just as evidence. :|

I never said that I know God doesn't exists, I do not believe in him because I do not see it necessary as long as science makes the effort to understand the reality we live in.

Also do not expect your senses and perceptions to work in trying to understand the quantum world. There are abstract phenomena very hard to be understood with our Newtonian perceptions.

The word "transcendent" was used in the context of God's relation with time, not about quantum physics.

I see you are quoting directly from the Carroll-Craig debate. However, the objection to the Kalam involving an Aristotelian conception of cause was one of the few points in which Craig had the upper hand on Carroll. I will quote directly from the debate as well:

To my surprise, Dr. Carroll challenges the first premise of this argument by saying it is based on outmoded Aristotelian concepts of causality. I protest – not at all! There is no analysis given of what it means to be a cause in this first premise. You can adopt your favorite theory of causation or take causation to be a conceptual primitive. All it requires is that the universe did not pop into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing.

The issue is, even if Carroll were right, that that objection was directed to the Kalam cosmological argument that Craig defends, so it's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

I think I made it clear that I agree entirely that the cosmological data we possess is not nearly enough to let us come up with a decisive answer to problems like the origin of the universe, my problem was specifically with Krauss' theory. I've never argued that the multiverse is false or that we have compelling evidence that the universe began to exist some billions years ago.

All I was trying to explain is that: 1) quantum vacuum is not nothing and 2) quantum particles don't pop in and out of existence without a cause (and I believe I've been quite successful since both of those contentions went unrefuted).
If you concede those things then all of what Krauss can get is that the universe might have arisen from preexisting quantum fields and that there's been a cause for that. This, by the way, is pretty far from being something that would rule God out of the games.

 

[minamoto]

Eh, can I choose Kaguyaism?

Bulll$hit Religion...

 

[Our Lord Sasuke]

The word "transcendent" was used in the context of God's relation with time, not about quantum physics.

I see you are quoting directly from the Carroll-Craig debate. However, the objection to the Kalam involving an Aristotelian conception of cause was one of the few points in which Craig had the upper hand on Carroll. I will quote directly from the debate as well:

To my surprise, Dr. Carroll challenges the first premise of this argument by saying it is based on outmoded Aristotelian concepts of causality. I protest – not at all! There is no analysis given of what it means to be a cause in this first premise. You can adopt your favorite theory of causation or take causation to be a conceptual primitive. All it requires is that the universe did not pop into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing.

The issue is, even if Carroll were right, that that objection was directed to the Kalam cosmological argument that Craig defends, so it's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

I think I made it clear that I agree entirely that the cosmological data we possess is not nearly enough to let us come up with a decisive answer to problems like the origin of the universe, my problem was specifically with Krauss' theory. I've never argued that the multiverse is false or that we have compelling evidence that the universe began to exist some billions years ago.

All I was trying to explain is that: 1) quantum vacuum is not nothing and 2) quantum particles don't pop in and out of existence without a cause (and I believe I've been quite successful since both of those contentions went unrefuted).
If you concede those things then all of what Krauss can get is that the universe might have arisen from preexisting quantum fields and that there's been a cause for that. This, by the way, is pretty far from being something that would rule God out of the games.

If I remember clear, the first person who talk about the possible scenario where universe can spontaneously nucleate from nothing it was Alex Vilenkin, and Krauss just suggested that absolute nothingness cannot exist as long as you have the laws quantum physics that are the potential for the creation of the universe. If these laws are created also from nothigness, even this nothingness is not the absolute one, because there is potential for creation for them, just like for the universe.
But this is more philosophical, I pref the idea in which universe eternal, and just change in time.

 

[minamoto]

If I remember clear, the first person who talk about the possible scenario where universe can spontaneously nucleate from nothing it was Alex Vilenkin, and Krauss just suggested that absolute nothingness cannot exist as long as you have the laws quantum physics that are the potential for the creation of the universe. If these laws are created also from nothigness, even this nothingness is not the absolute one, because there is potential for creation for them, just like for the universe.
But this is more philosophical, I pref the idea in which universe eternal, and just change in time.

follow teh subject...teh threads isn't about universe and cosmology....

 

[Our Lord Sasuke]

follow teh subject...teh threads isn't about universe and cosmology....

Let's talk about Kim Kardashian.

 

[minamoto]

Let's talk about Kim Kardashian.

how about we talk about when Tobidara was in his cave and tied sasuke with teh ropes then.....

 

[SSStylish]

Judaism easely. Gotta get that money.

 

[Skorm]

The sane religion of atheism.

 

[Lelouch Vii Britannia]

The sane religion of atheism.

Not really since some of them call for force conversion to atheism so not all of them are "sane"

 

[Skorm]

Not really since some of them call for force conversion to atheism so not all of them are "sane"

So do most religions.

 

[minamoto]

So do most religions.

Nice ficfan..

 

[Lelouch Vii Britannia]

So do most religions.

Thats my point, all religions and atheism have good and bad people

 

[kimb]

The sane religion of atheism.

Atheism isn't a religion tho

 

[minamoto]

Atheism isn't a religion tho

are you one of them????

 

[vida]

i-------------->.

wich religion would you like to choose and why?????

Judaism, Christianity, or Islam



Note : plz no bashing ........

Can I ask a question? Can you actually choose Judaism? I have heard that you have to be born a Jewish, so...:erm: