Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Dante]

source

He also said this, and the bolded words are quite disturbing, especially if you have any understanding of the Bible.

Sorry, why's that? I have no doubt that he was referring to the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, and meant well in his statement. Are you meaning to say you think the world would have been better off if Werner had surrendered his technology to the Nazis instead? To be fair, Einstein gave the technology for the nuclear bomb to the Americans to prevent it from getting into the hands of the Nazis as well, but people still generally hold his scientific and philosophical views in high regard.

Of course, there is the possibility as you say, but it is not a necessity and therefore, in my opinion, is superfluous.

Depends, if you are merely satisfied with the naturalistic, scientific worldview - or if you are bold enough to seek out deeper answers. Personally, I am motivated by the pursuit of ultimate truth, and everything else is superfluous. But that's just me.

[GhostOfGallipoli]

Are you meaning to say you think the world would have been better off if Werner had surrendered his technology to the Nazis instead? To be fair, Einstein gave the technology for the nuclear bomb to the Americans to prevent it from getting into the hands of the Nazis as well,

your grasp of history is pretty weak there champ

[Dante]

Hmm, what's your interpretation of events then?

[UppityDuck]

Sorry, why's that? I have no doubt that he was referring to the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, and meant well in his statement. Are you meaning to say you think the world would have been better off if Werner had surrendered his technology to the Nazis instead? To be fair, Einstein gave the technology for the nuclear bomb to the Americans to prevent it from getting into the hands of the Nazis as well, but people still generally hold his scientific and philosophical views in high regard.

Well, since the 'Americans' are instituting some Nazi ideas, /I guess that it's just as well, aye!
Also: Prescott Bush.

Depends, if you are merely satisfied with the naturalistic, scientific worldview - or if you are bold enough to seek out deeper answers. Personally, I am motivated by the pursuit of ultimate truth, and everything else is superfluous. But that's just me.

Deeper answers? You mean answers that dovetail nicely with your religious views?
Ultimate truth? By definition are you implying an 'ultimate entity'?
What is your understanding of 'religion'?
Why are scientific methods not enough for you?

[Dr Woomanchu]

Is anyone here even a so-called "Creatonist"?

I think Werner Von Braun, the foremost prominent rocket engineer of the 20th century, made a rather poignant remark when he said:

"It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance."

Don't get me wrong, I don't think children should be taught a literal biblical interpretation as a theory for anything because that would be ludicrous, however on the other hand I don't think they should be given the false impression that the theory of evolution is the be all and end all to all explanations for everything, because it is not - yet that is the agenda that some atheist spokespeople are no doubt trying to push.

Evolution describes the mechanism by which organisms change over time. It explains how we got from the most basic forms of life to the complexity and diversity we have now.  

Evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis, geology, cosmology and astronomy, beyond a metaphysical discussion of how the fundamentals of the universe make evolution pretty well inevitable once you have abiogenesis.

If creationists want to speculate about abiogenesis I have no issue  with that. Maybe some superior being did create the first spark, but then the skeptic in me says who created the creator and at that point it gets silly, but it is an area where science has made little progress so there's still plenty of room for peoples gods to have a hand in the process.

[UppityDuck]

If creationists want to speculate about abiogenesis I have no issue  with that. Maybe some superior being did create the first spark, but then the skeptic in me says who created the creator and at that point it gets silly, but it is an area where science has made little progress so there's still plenty of room for peoples gods to have a hand in the process.

Yep, but this is where I struggle a little. It has been shown that (using Christianity as an example) the Garden of Eden and creation of people is preposterous. Where was 'god' during Homo erectus' time, where was he/she/it prior to the period of agricultural growth vs hunter gatherer? Why are there so many different 'gods'? Why do we not see evidence of god anymore, as in miracles, conversions on the 'road to Damascus', why no more intervention, or was it all invention in the first place as a way to control people and usurp the power?

Sure, as I said earlier, there is the possibility, but I count this as remote and superfluous and unnecessary, even using our incomplete understanding of physics and cosmology.

[GhostOfGallipoli]

Hmm, what's your interpretation of events then?

not an interpretation, historical fact

n his 20s and early 30s, von Braun was the central figure in Germany's pre-war rocket development program, responsible for the design and realization of the deadly V-2 combat rocket during World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

so, good ol Wernher, far from being concerned with "surrendering" his tech to the nazi's, was their chief rocket guy, and i dare say the only reason he ended up in the US was it was infinitely more preferable to have him there, than in the hands of the russians

Concerned scientists, many of them refugees from European anti-Semitism in the U.S., recognized the danger of German scientists developing an atomic bomb based on the newly discovered phenomena of nuclear fission. In 1939, the Hungarian émigré Leó Szilárd, having failed to arouse U.S. government interest on his own, worked with Einstein to write a letter to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which Einstein signed, urging U.S. development of such a weapon.[83] In August 1939, Roosevelt received the Einstein-Szilárd letter and authorized secret research into the harnessing of nuclear fission for military purposes.[84]

By 1942 this effort had become the Manhattan Project, the largest secret scientific endeavor undertaken up to that time. By late 1945, the U.S. had developed operational nuclear weapons, and used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Einstein himself did not play a role in the development of the atomic bomb other than signing the letter. He did help the United States Navy with some unrelated theoretical questions it was working on during the war.[85]

According to Linus Pauling, Einstein later expressed regret about his letter to Roosevelt.[86] In 1947, Einstein wrote an article for The Atlantic Monthly arguing that the United States should not try to pursue an atomic monopoly, and instead should equip the United Nations with nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of maintaining deterrence.[87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstien#Anti-Nazism

einstien = theory, and not the actual building of an A-bomb, the fact that Einstiens work was black listed as unacceptable "jewish physics" in germany, coupled with their inability to get enough of the base ingredients for a bomb...meant that nazi germany would've been hard pressed to even make a radiological bomb, let alone an full fledged a-bomb

[Dr Woomanchu]

Yep, but this is where I struggle a little. It has been shown that (using Christianity as an example) the Garden of Eden and creation of people is preposterous. Where was 'god' during Homo erectus' time, where was he/she/it prior to the period of agricultural growth vs hunter gatherer? Why are there so many different 'gods'? Why do we not see evidence of god anymore, as in miracles, conversions on the 'road to Damascus', why no more intervention, or was it all invention in the first place as a way to control people and usurp the power?

Sure, as I said earlier, there is the possibility, but I count this as remote and superfluous and unnecessary, even using our incomplete understanding of physics and cosmology.

Religion and science talk about different things. Whenever religion comes up against evidence things tend to get absurd really quickly. I've come to the conclusion in recent years that if proof was discovered of some entity that had a controlling hand in the universe, new supernatural entities will spring up pretty quickly. i.e lack of evidence is a prerequisite of godhood.

I have no problems with all of these concepts being discussed in schools. There more critical examination the better, as long as they are not presented on the same basis as science i.e not in science class. That is about as silly as teaching Shakespeare in PE

[UppityDuck]

Religion and science talk about different things.

Yes, on the whole they do, but there are overlaps as well. Naturally, I am biased towards the scientific approach and I readily admit that. However this is not out of ignorance of religions but rather that the religions do not make sense, to me.

I was brought up in a Christian household and arguably had more 'christianity' enforced upon me than the average citizen due to my particular familial arrangements. Studying comparative religion and the phenomenology of religon hasn't changed my stand.

I agree, however, that religious education is o.k, as long as it encompasses all religions (in the comparative sense, perhaps) as religion has played a huge role throughout human history. It shouldn't be taught in Science classes, nor should creationism or intelligent design. The trick though, is finding a teacher who is on to it enough to be able to put forward the ideas without bias towards one particular cult.

[Dante]

Evolution describes the mechanism by which organisms change over time. It explains how we got from the most basic forms of life to the complexity and diversity we have now.

Again, just to make the distinction, natural selection describes the mechanism which causes change in species over time - evolution describes the development of something as a whole, over time. Ie. We can say that the entire Universe has evolved over time, but not necessarily specifically by the mechanism of natural selection. Semantics really, but yeah.

but then the skeptic in me says who created the creator and at that point it gets silly

Well, I think I done a reasonably good job of answering that question in this thread.

but it is an area where science has made little progress so there's still plenty of room for peoples gods to have a hand in the process.

Science and Religion are two completely separate realms, we both know that. Science deals primarily with knowledge of the physical world and religion deals with wisdom; through thousands of years of religious history, philosophy and spiritual experience.  Knowledge and wisdom are not contradictory, in fact they are complimentary.

I don't prescribe to the so-called God of the gaps theory though as you are postulating, nor does it make any sense to me to do so. My beliefs are merely emboldened through what science reveals about the Universe, not minimized - I see no need to insert God into the gaps of knowledge that science has not yet discovered because I believe God is above and beyond any and all possible scientific theories. After all, science doesn't merely display the genius of mankind in describing the universe through reason and experiment, it displays the genius manifest in the universe that is already there and we are just uncovering with our tools.

How much do you actually know about theology, and in specific, natural theology (of what St. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, is most notably famous for)?

Why are scientific methods not enough for you?

Science makes explicit the incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do all electrons have the same charge and mass? Why is the design that we see everywhere so truly miraculous? Why are so many processes so deeply interconnected? Why are the physical constants and laws of nature so delicately balanced to allow the evolution of not just life, but intelligent life like ourselves that are able to think about and ask such questions? Why is the Universe intelligible to our minds at all, or why does the Universe make any sense at all rather than complete nonsense?

Science cannot tell us if love or justice truly exists, or if they are merely delusions that have no meaning whatsoever. Science cannot tell us what beauty is, it cannot tell us what spirituality is. Science cannot tell us if good and evil have any objective value - it can tell us how to create a hydrogen bomb of incredible death and destruction, but it cannot tell us if it is morally right to use that bomb.

I'll continue this by paraphrasing famous cosmologist and astronomer Dr. Allan Sandage:

Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as all scientists must do in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science.

There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard's 12th century dictum "Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other" still rings true.

It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionalist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become.

If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong.

As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle-an architect for believers-a mystery to be explained in part by science sometime in the indefinite future for materialist reductionalists.

This situation of the complication and the order to function of an organism, where the sum is greater than its parts (i.e. has a higher order), becomes more astonishing every year as the scientific results become more detailed. Because of this, many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work. In the final analysis it is a faith made stronger through the argument by design. I simply do not now believe that the reductionalist philosophy, so necessary to pursue the scientific method and, to repeat, the method which all scientists must master and practice with all their might and skill in their laboratory, can explain everything.

Furthermore; Let us not forget that the birth of science itself came from religious conviction, and a desire to know and understand God's creation in it's entirety. And before you deride faith as an empty value - let us not forget that all of the greatest scientists of history saw faith not only as a virtue, but as a necessity to conducting intelligent science:

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe."

"I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be both beautiful and simple."
(Albert Einstein, 1941)

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." (Max Planck, 1932)

Not blind, empty faith though of course, but faith through reason and evidence.

[cobra]

plagiarism, plagiarism, plagiarism

science can not answer all questions but religion doesn't answer any

[Tiwaking!]

I cannot sit back and let this thread become the stalking grounds for the unwary and ignorant

Again, just to make the distinction, natural selection describes the mechanism which causes change in species over time - evolution describes the development of something as a whole, over time. Ie. We can say that the entire Universe has evolved over time, but not necessarily specifically by the mechanism of natural selection. Semantics really, but yeah.

Refutation to the insertion of Semantic Noise

Spoiler :

Semantic noise

Of the various forms of noise, semantic noise may be the most common and difficult to define. It can best be described as particular diction or syntax that leads to confusion or misinterpretation of the intended message. One reason semantic noise is so widespread is how easily it can extend to written language. For example, the reader may perceive this article to be correct if it is written well enough, though that has little to do with the content. However, a person using language this formal in casual conversation may seem a bit strange. Semantic noise often takes the form of disrespectful or outdated terminology that offends a particular group or demographic. It also occurs with words or phrases that mean different things to different people. Indeed, semantic noise occurs to some extent or another in almost all forms of verbal communication

Refutation to the extension of Evolution to cover cosmology

The Theory of Evolution was not proposed to explain cosmology. Extending it to do so is no more logical than "Triumph of the Will" and its attempt to pervert Nietzches writings. Please do not attempt to do so. Further attempts to do so will result in humiliation

Science and Religion are two completely separate realms, we both know that

Science investigates reality so exists in the realm of the REAL
Religion investigates itself so exists in the realm of DO NOT WANT. Proof? What Science discovers, Religion claims
The 'Hulk' God
This point cannot be refuted because history is LITTERED with examples of it happening. You could even say that history is nothing more than a collection of Hulk God events, but you know. Semantics

How much do you actually know about theology, and in specific, natural theology (of what St. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, is most notably famous for)?

Lots. Lots and lots and lots. In fact: I've stopped bothering to write anything new and just quote myself constantly. I find the repetition to be annoying, but necessary. I do accept that Mr Aquinas was ahead of his time, but perhaps you should investigate a little thing called nepotism first.

Science makes explicit the incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why

Science answers this with: 'Why not?'

Why is there something instead of nothing?

I reduced your argument to this point. Why something instead of nothing? Well:
THIS

PLUS THIS edit: This is meant to be Hsienbergs motion equation, but its very blurry

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS


Gives you your answer. See? Its that simple

Science cannot tell us if love or justice truly exists, or if they are merely delusions that have no meaning whatsoever

Dude: YOU cant even tell us that love or justice exist! You cant tell me that there isnt a taniwha at the begining of the mountain provides the water for the stream that flows past my house, because if I believe otherwise then it DOES exist!

What I mean is: Blaming Science for your problems does nothing but cause more problems. No one has come up with perfect morals, even Saint Thomas Aquinas realized that perfect morals(not God's morals, they are beyond perfect) creates perfect problems

I'll continue this by paraphrasing famous cosmologist and astronomer Dr. Allan Sandage:

I'll continue this by paraphrasing you

It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionalist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become.

The way is emptiness,
Yet practice it and it seems inexhaustible
Fathomless and still,
Yet all life seems to spring from it

Is more pofound

If there is no God, nothing makes sense.

If there is no God, everything makes sense. Why? Because anything truly beyond understanding would no longer exist. Why some babies are still-born, why do I always put holes in my socks, why do the last five minutes of work alway seem the longest. They would all have an answer

Promoting the idea that a being exists beyond our comprehension, beyond our reach and beyond the limits of reality BREAKS any rules we discover and makes anything considered 'true' to be false. Instead of living in a safe reality, you live in a cruel, uncompromising place where no matter what you do, how you think or act: It can all come apart on the whim of the unknown. Spooky

As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone

Anything that can come about by chance, will come about by chance. That is the absolute law of probability. Hell, it even falls outside of Godels theorem(which was brought up earlier for unknown reasons)

Not blind, empty faith though of course, but faith through reason and evidence.

ALL faith is blind, empty faith. Faith requires neither reason or evidence. I think you should go back and reread Summa Theologica again if you believe otherwise

[Dante]

Refutation to the insertion of Semantic Noise

Ad hominem attacks are boring, add nothing worthwhile to the discussion and will be ignored.

The Theory of Evolution was not proposed to explain cosmology.

I didn't say it is, I said that the word evolution can be used as an expression to describe the development of something as a whole over time, ie. the solar system, the universe.

Science investigates reality so exists in the realm of the REAL

I suggest you look up the basic definition of reality: Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist". In a sense it is what is real. The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.

Are you trying to say that there are absolutely no limits to the scientific method whatsoever and that science is adequate to describe and explain all existence in it's entirety? By what reasoning do you base this upon?

Religion investigates itself so exists in the realm of DO NOT WANT. Proof?

Religion does not 'investigate itself'. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Science answers this with: 'Why not?'

Where exactly does science answer that, and what exactly is the question you are specifically referring to that 'Why not?' is supposedly an answer to, and what kind of an answer is 'Why not?' anyway? That's the answer of a half-assed, lazy intellectual if you ask me.

I reduced your argument to this point. Why something instead of nothing? Well:

Gives you your answer. See? Its that simple

Sorry, but that explained precisely nothing, and furthermore does not appear to bear any relevance whatsoever to my question. Or are you trying to tell me that you have just instantly solved one of the greatest questions that philosophers have been thinking about since the dawn of mankind?

Dude: YOU cant even tell us that love or justice exist!

I never said I can, I said that science is incapable of providing answers to such question. Such answers can only be sought through philosophy and religion.

...Is more pofound...

I didn't find that very profound at all, actually.

If there is no God, everything makes sense. Why? Because anything truly beyond understanding would no longer exist. Why some babies are still-born, why do I always put holes in my socks, why do the last five minutes of work alway seem the longest. They would all have an answer

Your statement is entirely nonsensical, and I am unable to reply with a suitable counterargument even if I wanted to.

Promoting the idea that a being exists beyond our comprehension, beyond our reach and beyond the limits of reality BREAKS any rules we discover and makes anything considered 'true' to be false.

Ah, but I don't believe God is completely beyond our comprehension and completely beyond the limits of reality, quite the contrary actually. I'm not too sure where you got that idea from.

Anything that can come about by chance, will come about by chance. That is the absolute law of probability. Hell, it even falls outside of Godels theorem(which was brought up earlier for unknown reasons)

Did the law of probability come about by chance too?

ALL faith is blind, empty faith. Faith requires neither reason or evidence. I think you should go back and reread Summa Theologica again if you believe otherwise

Sorry but I don't agree with your views, of course there is a clear difference between blind faith and faith accompanied by reason. I can have faith in God, but it means nothing if I have not reached this faith through reasoning and evidence.  A Christian can have faith in Christ as the ultimate spiritual redeemer of mankind, but again it means nothing if that faith is not reached through reason.

I take it you disagree with the quotes from Einstein and Max Planck regarding a scientist's necessity of faith in the ordered regularity manifest in nature then as well? Do you reject that kind of faith as 'blind, empty faith'?

[GhostOfGallipoli]

and the fisking begins

[Tiwaking!]

and the fisking begins

Irish journalist Eoghan Harris had in 1999 used the term "fisking" with a different meaning; "To fisk is not to face the facts for as long as possible and, when found out, to divert the public from your mistake by spinning shiny stories in the air."[citation needed] However, no one else appears to have used the term in this sense, and Harris later remarked that he had "lost a coinage."[9]

And to Dante

I read with great interest everything you wrote until I got to this point

Ah, but I don't believe God is completely beyond our comprehension and completely beyond the limits of reality, quite the contrary actually. I'm not too sure where you got that idea from.

And then my mind broke

Its actually broken now. I have to go find the pieces.

[Dante]

What exactly do you take issue with in that statement, Tiwaking? It is my view that an understanding of God, whether a complete understanding or not,  can be reached through reason, and reason is entirely within the limits of reality. I don't believe God is outside of our reality, I believe God is very much a part of our reality.

PS. I didn't think it was you who is neg repping me, nor do I care mate There are more important things to worry about.

[Chilli]

I believe God is very much a part of our reality.

Very much part of your reality! Stop putting others in your thinking, like you said, and I happen to agree, each to their own.
But sadly your statement does reinforce the typical pushy bible basher theory doesn't it.

[GhostOfGallipoli]

someone is just trying to fill their converts quota, and since someone already stole his crusade idea, all thats left is the forums

[Iblis]

LOL. Christians trying to hang on to god despite embracing the rest of science crack me up. If you're going to wax metaphysical about god like he is the force behind everything, then why call it god at all? It would be so far removed from the abrahamic god that it would be like calling a rock an apple. This pseudo-spiritual scientific god does not interact with humanity, or pass judgement, or listen to prayers, or care whether or not you're wearing a veil, or showing a bit of arm, or whether you go to church on sunday, or even have any kind of human-like emotion while killing millions of people in sometimes excruciating ways every day. In fact, this god would just be a cold, random force of nature that wouldn't give a care that we even debated its existence. So what's left? A bunch of people anthropomorphising a natural force for their own comfort, emotional attachment, and to use for their own gain in trying to convince people of the righteousness of their own defined morality. Well guess what? My god says you're wrong.

[GhostOfGallipoli]

LOL. Christians trying to hang on to god despite embracing the rest of science crack me up. If you're going to wax metaphysical about god like he is the force behind everything, then why call it god at all? It would be so far removed from the abrahamic god that it would be like calling a rock an apple. This pseudo-spiritual scientific god does not interact with humanity, or pass judgement, or listen to prayers, or care whether or not you're wearing a veil, or showing a bit of arm, or whether you go to church on sunday, or even have any kind of human-like emotion while killing millions of people in sometimes excruciating ways every day. In fact, this god would just be a cold, random force of nature that wouldn't give a care that we even debated its existence. So what's left? A bunch of people anthropomorphising a natural force for their own comfort, emotional attachment, and to use for their own gain in trying to convince people of the righteousness of their own defined morality. Well guess what? My god says you're wrong.

thread won

[Tandoori]

[Dr Woomanchu]

lots of stuff

If I go point by point it gets out of hand so just some general comments.

Re: Who created the creator: I only raise this point because of the watchmaker argument. To claim that it is so absurdly unlikely the universe and life could have arisen by chance that it must have been created, but then to be completely comfortable that no-one needed to create the creator is inconsistent at best.

The post you referred to does not begin to explain why your god(s) are exempt from the requirements you place on the universe.

Knowledge of religion: I was raised in a religious household. I have always found religion fascinating because of  how well it illustrates the human capacity for self delusion ( I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. We all delude ourselves about things. we'd go mad otherwise). My knowledge of what religion is and isn't is about as good as it can be for a layman.

I am fascinated at how people can quite comfortably hold the blatantly absurd paradoxes required to believe in gods in their heads with no difficulty at all.

Love and justice:  The mechanism of love is quite well understood scientifically. It's a very basic animal behaviour that is easily measurable in the physical reactions of the body. It is quite possible to test for love.

Justice is a concept, and exists only through its definition in language. Actually now I think about it justice and gods are very similar: Human creations to help us get through life. Both gods and justice don't exist without people to define them.

[GhostOfGallipoli]

http://www.gotoquiz.com/do_you_have_biblical_morals

[UppityDuck]

HaHa, great quiz

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.
 

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

[AfroDizzzy]

Got that to. :asian: