You started arguing with my rebuttal of Pascal's wager, which you now agree is flawed? Cool story.
I never argued against it. Where did I specifically state that Pascal was right or wrong? Once again, assumptions. Your counter argument is flawed and personally biased because you assume I'm contradicting you.
It's not my 'opinion' when something is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are concrete and not subjective. Saying what we have defined as 2 added to itself equals what we have defined as 4 is not opinion. And all religions stem from one? There is no evidence of this, and religions are waaaaaaaay older than 6000 years.
You obviously don't read ancient Sumerian recorded history. The oldest recorded instance of a religious and organized civilzation in Earth's history. An opinion is an opinion when you state something and not everyone agrees with you. Since I see people obviously not agreeing with you, it certainly does not make you automatically right no matter what evidence you provide. It's still an opinion. Get used to it.
People do these things regardless of their religion or lack thereof. And when people break the law they either are responding to incentives to do so or are have had abnormal development socially. Impressing women is one of the most hardwired male instincts. Stealing is done because of poverty. Both are incentives. The sick thrill comes from being abnormal, usually a form of autism or sociopathic urges.
Yes people do it regardless, you must have not read that part where I specifically stated a few reasons why people disobey laws. But for some reason you seem to restate exactly what I said. Way to go.
lol, you're one to talk. You started arguing with me when you agreed that Pascal's wager was flawed.
Again, your personal assumtion where no written example is stated of my affiliation to the subject. Is that all you have to argue with?
You don't even know a THING about the Big Bang, and yet you speak like you do? Have you actually read anything about it or are you just basing your opinions on a history channel documentary on the subject?
I have stated the exact case you have repeated so many times on the Big bang. The universe starts from a single point. A huge explosion expands that finite point to the current size it is over a period of 14 billion years. What is there to not understand about it?
Seriously, what the forget. It is an observed fact the Universe has expanded rapidly from a smaller point. Light moves at a finite speed. By looking at light that's come from far enough away we can see billions of years into the past.
But thanks to the Big bang, you can never see the point of ignition so you can never truly tell if it did indeed start from a finite point or if it began from a galaxy 30 times our size because that light is still traveling towards us from so long ago. How many assumptions are you going to make to prove a theory?
And all atoms have electrons, unless they are ionized, and even the vast majority of ions have electrons. NO ONE KNOWS, I repeat, NO ONE KNOWS what caused the big bang. If you've heard claims to the contrary, you've been mislead. Atoms cannot smash eachother and cause a big bang because atoms exist within the universe, and the singularity before the big bang was the entire universe.
Ionized atoms have an extra electron, not being devoid of one. I think you need to go back to school, my friend because atoms can not exist without electrons. Secondly, since you said no one knows what caused the big bang then why are you so offended about something you don't even believe in being the relying cause? You don't know, so why do you assume that that obviously isn't it? You don't know so you can't argue against it.
WTF? There is no valid reason to fear anything from the LHC, and all you're doing is spreading misinformation and fear mongering.
So say you. We know that the fusion or the breaking apart of atoms causes large explosions like observed in THE SUN or ATOMIC BOMBS, yet when done in small quantities it won't do the same? Sure, the scale won't be as prominent, but explosions still happen and each time those series of tests are run, the machine that keeps a set amount of particles entering the machine at one time can always fail and as a result a much larger explosion can occur, maybe even one large enough to leave that place as a giant smoldering crater. Again you assume too much faith in Science being flawless in infalliable when it, just like religion has been proven to be wrong before and has changed as our understanding grows.
For a person who seems so sure of himself and his arguments, you make a lot of assumptions.
[/quote]
Amade, a valid point you made, but it states "in the beginning" It never said "In the beginning, which was about 6 days, God created the Heavens and the Earth." Everything he did with the Earth is what conspired in those "6days" which on a eternal deity scale can go, can easily equal 6 billion years in comparison. But that's just a personal opinion and is always subject to debate.
