News3 mins ago
Life's Great Questions
46 Answers
Atheists simply do not have a clue about how to approach the problem of answering Life's Great Questions.
With their champion relying on a multiverse, to answer the problem of cosmological constants, no,evidence of course, the atheist is adrift and in a world of make believe, supported solely by the notion that they never met God today. Shallow. And sad.
With their champion relying on a multiverse, to answer the problem of cosmological constants, no,evidence of course, the atheist is adrift and in a world of make believe, supported solely by the notion that they never met God today. Shallow. And sad.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I love these potty religionists.
Question: Christianity is just over 2000 years old, but even Christian nutjobs can’t deny the fact that – just as one tiny example – the ancient Egyptians were around for a few thousand years beforehand, worshipping their own gods. So at what point did the Christian god say “Hang on a minute – I made all this stuff and they’re worshipping gods who aren’t me? I mean, What The Funicular, we need to do something about this”? He sort of let things drag out a bit, didn’t he? I’d have thought he’d be in there from day one, demanding worship and doing his smiting etc etc like any self-respecting deity should. I would, and I’m not even a god.
Question: Christianity is just over 2000 years old, but even Christian nutjobs can’t deny the fact that – just as one tiny example – the ancient Egyptians were around for a few thousand years beforehand, worshipping their own gods. So at what point did the Christian god say “Hang on a minute – I made all this stuff and they’re worshipping gods who aren’t me? I mean, What The Funicular, we need to do something about this”? He sort of let things drag out a bit, didn’t he? I’d have thought he’d be in there from day one, demanding worship and doing his smiting etc etc like any self-respecting deity should. I would, and I’m not even a god.
I am an atheist and I have no 'champion' as you put it. I don't need science to tell me God is a man made construct to justify his short and pointless life.
The shallow and sad look to books with no foundation and based on the writing dictated by their PARTICULAR God.
If there were such a thing as a god then there would be no need of multiverse or indeed multigods.
But it's OK. You are allowed to think your shallow and sad beliefs. That is what being human is about isn't it? Thinking and believing what we want rather than what others expect us to think.
The shallow and sad look to books with no foundation and based on the writing dictated by their PARTICULAR God.
If there were such a thing as a god then there would be no need of multiverse or indeed multigods.
But it's OK. You are allowed to think your shallow and sad beliefs. That is what being human is about isn't it? Thinking and believing what we want rather than what others expect us to think.
I feel so sad for those who put all their faith in myths and legends of whatever description. These are people who do no good for their fellow man without thought for themselves, and because it is the right thing to do, but for selfish reasons as they believe it will benefit them in the long run. Selfish
The multiverse is a "space" for want of a better world where multiple universes exist. The idea being we may think we are in the only place that exists but the reality is there are many, possibly a infinite number of universes that exist.
Cosmologic constants are values held by various things in physics (for example the strength of the weak force related to how things decay) which define what a universe will end up looking like.
If I read things correctly Theland is suggesting that it is inconceivable that a single universe simply, by chance, was set up just so that life could form. And puts forward the view that an intelligence must have deliberately created it, ignoring the issue of now having to explain the existence of aforementioned intelligence.
Where I think Theland has a bigger issue is that the scientific explanation is simply pooh-poohed in order to claim atheists have no clue. Since many will not accept the criticism of the multiverse explanation it follows there is no grounds for saying atheists have no clue, or at least no more grounds than claiming no one has a clue.
The thing is that given the infinitely unlikely chance there is one universe which by chance just happens to be suitable for life to emerge one seeks an explanation. One can, on faith alone, push the question of what created it back one step by believing in a deity. Or one can find explanations that doesn't need that leap of faith.
The multiverse is such an explanation. If one universe can form then why not many ? And given sufficient it seems infinitesimally unlikely than none is hospitable to life. Thus life emerges in those "Goldilocks" universes where things are "just right" for the life that finally emerges/evolves.
No one can guarantee this is the right explanation but most will find it more satisfying that simply saying someone did it.
Cosmologic constants are values held by various things in physics (for example the strength of the weak force related to how things decay) which define what a universe will end up looking like.
If I read things correctly Theland is suggesting that it is inconceivable that a single universe simply, by chance, was set up just so that life could form. And puts forward the view that an intelligence must have deliberately created it, ignoring the issue of now having to explain the existence of aforementioned intelligence.
Where I think Theland has a bigger issue is that the scientific explanation is simply pooh-poohed in order to claim atheists have no clue. Since many will not accept the criticism of the multiverse explanation it follows there is no grounds for saying atheists have no clue, or at least no more grounds than claiming no one has a clue.
The thing is that given the infinitely unlikely chance there is one universe which by chance just happens to be suitable for life to emerge one seeks an explanation. One can, on faith alone, push the question of what created it back one step by believing in a deity. Or one can find explanations that doesn't need that leap of faith.
The multiverse is such an explanation. If one universe can form then why not many ? And given sufficient it seems infinitesimally unlikely than none is hospitable to life. Thus life emerges in those "Goldilocks" universes where things are "just right" for the life that finally emerges/evolves.
No one can guarantee this is the right explanation but most will find it more satisfying that simply saying someone did it.
