* You're

#### ~~Christians~~ Atheists

I'm not sure where you got your ideas about ~~Christians~~ atheists, but they are just people and they are not monolithic. Your stereotypes of them are just that.

> As for Christian in science, their contribution is a matter of historical records. It would be worth your time to brush up.

The fact that a long time ago most scientists were Christians doesn't mean diddly squat, everyone would have had to adhere to the religion of those in power or be hunted down as a heretic. Plus them being Christian doesn't change anything about what they discovered or the body of scientific knowledge being expanded.

### The story so far...

...is that your reframing my positions is a pathetic straw man argument

Christianity;

The popular belief that a celestial Jewish baby who is also his own father, born from a virgin mother, died for three days so that he could ascend to heaven on a cloud and then make you live forever only if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your lord & master so he can remove an evil force from your spiritual being that is present in all humanity because an immoral woman made from a man's rib was hoodwinked by a talking reptile possessed by an malicious angel to secretly eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree.

Sounds perfectly plausible...

See I can do it too, but notice that I hadn't been until now. This conversation has become boring and repetitive, and I'm done with it. Don't bother replying.

Hell yeah congrats!!

Happy #Easter #Nostr

LOL Faketoshi at it again.

#[0]

> I'm not sure why you would argue with this...

I was differentiating around the use of the "has". Some things are a mystery because there are things we don't know, but that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers. Oftentimes that's what religion does, asserts things that can't be proven in place of a simple 'i don't know' and remaining satisfied with the "mystery" when *better* explanations are put forward.

> Who is this that never punts to mystery OR knows everything? Who has this worldview?

Theists, at least the majority that I've met

> Only a worldview that has a foundation of knowledge and certainty will value the Scientific Method.

I would argue that the scientific method builds the foundation of knowledge and that should build the worldview.

> Which explains why do many early scientist were Christian and other theists. It was birthed in that world view.

No they would be killed as heretics or at least put in prison or house arrest, like Galileo nearly was.

> So by evidence, do you mean eye witnesses, archeology, and other external documentation.

Sure that would count. But when you say "external documentation" it sounds like you already have something in mind...what would that be?

> Not in terms of religion. How do you know things?

The same way anyone does I guess. But I see from the bio that you're a Christian, and since this is Easter, how do you _know_ Jesus rose from the dead on the third day?

> So you are an atheist?

Yes

> So you believe that everything comes from nothing.

I don't know for sure but it's more likely than a god

> Do you believe that all life was immaculately conceived? It's hard to overcome biogenesis. Isn't it?

Abiogenesis is like big bang, it might be a very unlikely thing to happen, but it only has to happen once.

Another great one

Also worth noting that although it's not a movie per se, the Netflix series Altered Carbon would trump all of these, it's absolutely phenomenal.

Blade Runner 2049

Tron Legacy

Johnny Mnemonic

Total Recall (The newer version)

Ex Machina

> Every worldview has to punt to mystery at some point.

I don't think that that's necessarily true. Humans are inherently pattern seeking creatures, so our thinking in one area or another is always going to have the potential for flaws but this doesn't mean it's inherent to a particular worldview.

> my worldview provides the necessary foundation to know things and have certainty.

This is only true if your worldview values a way of thinking in line with the scientific method. You would have to value evidence above any sort of sacred text or doctrine and abandon them when confronted with incontrovertible proof that previously held beliefs are wrong.

> Not all of them do.

This is true

> How would you describe your worldview?

In terms of religion yeah you could describe me as an atheist, nontheist, anti-theist, secular humanist, any of those would fit. More accurately and agnostic atheist, because as I had said previously agnosticism is not a halfway point, it's a claim of whether or not you have knowledge not a statement of belief. But you might find it interesting that from an atheist perspective, the word atheist is something that shouldn't really be needed. It's a bit like describing yourself is a non-stamp collector. As someone famous once said, I can't remember who, "atheism is just the sounds that rational people make when confronted with unjustifiable beliefs."

Warrior

Strugglin'

To remain

Consequential

1. The short answer is I don't know. (And I'm okay with that being the extent of it. I wish more people would just say "I don't know") but yeah it seems matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states. My suspicion is there can be exceptions to this, like an event such as the big bang itself, inside black holes, a spontaneous event like vacuum decay, or whatever might happen in very deep time when everything in the universe is cold and dark and there's only one particle per 1x10^⁹⁹⁹⁹⁹ lightyears². But this is getting well outside my area of expertise, so once again I will defer to the scientific community.

2. That seems to be most likely what happened, I don't have evidence to the contrary.

3. The phrase I used, "cosmic soup", is just an analogy for what astrophysicists call "nothing". It doesn't disprove thermodynamics, if you study the research virtual particles always appear in pairs of matter or energy and almost as quickly as they appear they annihilate each other. But again, getting outside my wheelhouse, if you have further questions I would recommend contacting someone who is well versed in quantum mechanics.

There's a problem with your questions.

Time itself is part of the expansion of the universe. So the "spontaneous combustion" of the big bang, or the universe being eternal presupposes that there was time or a "nothingness" before the universe started. It could be the case that a "soup" a virtual particles is about as close to "nothing" as there could ever be. Similarly since time is part of it, there might not be such thing as "before" the big bang, or "outside" the universe, because it would be like asking what's north of the North Pole.

But as for what I specifically believe, I've taken a few college level astronomy classes but I'm not an astrophysicist, so I know enough to know a good deal about the subject matter, but also that I don't know nearly enough to disagree with the scientific community. The evidence shows 14.5 billion years ago our universe was compressed to a nearly infitesimally small point and in a microsecond began expanding rapidly. Physics shows that very improbable things can happen occasionally. A big bang might have been one of them, but that only needed to happen once. The anthropic principle shows that it doesn't matter how improbable something might have been we would only exist in that improbable universe to postulate it. Notice that none of this requires a creator to be involved. So now you have to ask yourself what's more probable, a universe started randomly and on one of the trillions and trillions of planets life started evolving, or a god-created this planet specifically and cares about who you're married to or what kind of head covering you wear. I see no evidence of any sort of god and find the proposition ridiculous. Sorry, but not sorry.

Not a good use of the word "virtual", yeah I'll admit poorly named, but they do exist if only for a fraction of a second.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Test

404

Started an #atheism channel

#[0]