Are you a better person now due to your faith?

[Jollybear]

Again running out of battery, ill do this one, the second one tomorrow

Several points

Science does not concern itself with the supernatural or magic, so not science although my first and last are mathematical

E=mc2 shows the god of revelation 19:6 (kjv and others) (i.e. omnipotent) cannot exist at the same time as matter. Omnipotent is infinite power, power is energy expended over time. There is matter so energy cannot be infinite. Hence no omnipotent god.
My view on taking the equation to its ultimate conclusion

Childhood leukemia shows no compassionate god can exist

The mosquito shows no designer god can exist, what god would design a race to worship him then design a small insect to kill his worshippers?

The futility of prayer shows no listening god exists

And proof by exhaustion indicates no gods exist. I.e in 10000 years of god worship literally billions of people have tried to prove their god exists.. and failed. It would only take 1 success to overthrow the proof. Waiting.

What about the law of thermodynamics? Energy is niether created or destroyed.

 

[Jollybear]

What you call evidence appears to be gaps. Science can't prove god doesnt exist* so god. Or science cannot prove my guess is wrong so god. Those gaps are getting smaller. Here
is a paper showing one way how something can come from nothing Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Science does not directly show God, but it does indirectly show God by the design, order and information in nature. Theres no gaps with the amount of complexity and information there is.

Considering humans can be proven and god cant then yes its god magic

Rarely anything can be proven. But, there is good, solid evidence for intelligent design. It dont take magic for intelligence to design the universe. It does take magic for nothing to create it though. POOF. Like a rabbit out of a hat.

Shown above, something from nothing is quantum, not magic.

Oh is the word quantum just a science lingo for magic? Define quantum.

Accretion is not magic unless you think gravity is magic. Nope, the laws coalesced after the universe formed from the properties of the universe.

Howed the laws get made?

Is it not? Interesting. NDEs mean god? Sounds more like confirmation bias rather than research.

I read 600 NDEs on this data base > NDERF Home Page . Ive also read Jeffrey longs book on NDEs. Ive read 2 other books on NDEs. Ive read counter articles from those that dont believe in NDEs.

Yea, ive done my research.

NDEs reveal a spirit realm, and a God (aka, the light that communicates to the people).

And anecdotal spiritual experiences somehow dont equate to spiritual conviction.

Define spiritual conviction? If you mean living up to morals, then i agree with that.

Fundimentalist : a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.

In my case, i believe some things are literal and some things are symbolic.

I will add to that from my own experience, usually cherry picked interpretation of their faith omitting the bits they dont agree with.

What if its all a big puzzle that needs to be put together properly to get the bigger picture?

* There is considerable evidence, even proof, that at least some claimed aspects of gods cannot exist.

Mayby, depends on how you define those gods. This statement is too general for me to agree or disagree with.

 

[ChristineM]

What about the law of thermodynamics? Energy is niether created or destroyed.

It began to coalesce around 10e-34 of a second after the bb.

 

[Jollybear]

It began to coalesce around 10e-34 of a second after the bb.

Break that down more?

 

[ChristineM]

Break that down more?

Ok - and completed coalescing to form the law(S) of thermodynamics around 10e-24 of a second after the bb. Actually i think i was wrong on 10e-34, science has progressed to the understanding that the laws of thermodynamics began to coalesce around 10e-42 of a second after the bb.

Did you expect the laws appertaining to this universe to have existed before this universe began to form?

 

[Jollybear]

Ok - and completed coalescing to form the law(S) of thermodynamics around 10e-24 of a second after the bb. Actually i think i was wrong on 10e-34, science has progressed to the understanding that the laws of thermodynamics began to coalesce around 10e-42 of a second after the bb.

Did you expect the laws appertaining to this universe to have existed before this universe began to form?

No, but, how did the laws or big bang happen?

 

[ChristineM]

No, but, how did the laws or big bang happen?

The laws developed from the properties of the universe

If anyone knows how the bb happened they are in line for a Nobel prize.

 

[Jollybear]

The laws developed from the properties of the universe

If anyone knows how the bb happened they are in line for a Nobel prize.

The laws happened from the properties of the universe?

What was the properties of the universe before the laws?

 

[ChristineM]

The laws happened from the properties of the universe?

What was the properties of the universe before the laws?

To dense for the laws of thermodynamics to resolve.

 

[Jollybear]

To dense for the laws of thermodynamics to resolve.

Explain more?

 

[ChristineM]

Explain more?

No, its its obvious. Think about it

 

[Jollybear]

No, its its obvious. Think about it

Im trying, but i dont understand.

 

[ChristineM]

Im trying, but i dont understand.

It is my belief you dont want to understand and are simply trying to waste my time

 

[Jollybear]

It is my belief you dont want to understand and are simply trying to waste my time

Not true. To be clear though, we both have two different views of how the universe got here.

Im just asking presser questions to your view. You gave some simple answers. I did not understand, so i ask more questions. I cant agree or disagree without first understanding what your saying first.

And im telling you the truth, i dont understand. If i did not want to understand, i would not even bother to ask the questions and state my lack of understanding. The fact im still typing here means i want to understand.

However, all that said, its very likely that even IF i come to understand, ill still probably disagree. Although, its still possible ill come to agree.

However, if you choose to not explain more, thats your choice. But, let it be due to you needing to attend your time to other things and not be due to me not wanting to understand because thats simply....not true.

 

[ChristineM]

Not true. To be clear though, we both have two different views of how the universe got here.

Im just asking presser questions to your view. You gave some simple answers. I did not understand, so i ask more questions. I cant agree or disagree without first understanding what your saying first.

And im telling you the truth, i dont understand. If i did not want to understand, i would not even bother to ask the questions and state my lack of understanding. The fact im still typing here means i want to understand.

However, all that said, its very likely that even IF i come to understand, ill still probably disagree. Although, its still possible ill come to agree.

However, if you choose to not explain more, thats your choice. But, let it be due to you needing to attend your time to other things and not be due to me not wanting to understand because thats simply....not true.

I simply do not believe that because the information is readily available on cosmology sites and even wilipedia

Here is the wiki link
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

If that is too much much then dont bother with this one
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca

 

[YoursTrue]

Not true. To be clear though, we both have two different views of how the universe got here.

Im just asking presser questions to your view. You gave some simple answers. I did not understand, so i ask more questions. I cant agree or disagree without first understanding what your saying first.

And im telling you the truth, i dont understand. If i did not want to understand, i would not even bother to ask the questions and state my lack of understanding. The fact im still typing here means i want to understand.

However, all that said, its very likely that even IF i come to understand, ill still probably disagree. Although, its still possible ill come to agree.

However, if you choose to not explain more, thats your choice. But, let it be due to you needing to attend your time to other things and not be due to me not wanting to understand because thats simply....not true.

I found that out when talking to ChristineM also, that if you don't understand her point, or it doesn't make sense, she tends to accuse you and leave the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I simply do not believe that because the information is readily available on cosmology sites and even wilipedia

Here is the wiki link
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

If that is too much much then dont bother with this one
Perimeter Institute

Yes, but can't you put it in your own words with backup for your views? In other words, as scientists do sometimes -- with the results of research and experimentation?

 

[ChristineM]

I found that out when talking to ChristineM also, that if you don't understand her point, or it doesn't make sense, she tends to accuse you and leave the discussion.

I did provide you with the relevant DNA information, not my problem you were unable to grasp it

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, but can't you put it in your own words with backup for your views? In other words, as scientists do sometimes -- with the results of research and experimentation?

I dont need to repeat work that has already been done, especially when the request is made by the deliberately ignorant to waste my time.

 

[lukethethird]

Are you a better person now due to your faith?

I don't know, but I was always better than most people.