Snackbar, had you actually read my post, you would see that your claim of Abrahamic religions denying flat Earth hypothesis since 400 BCE is utter crap. And please kindly notice that you brushed passed another point again; not even addressing the origins of God.
And I am fully aware of what is required for a GUT. The GUT is not a creator and therefore not subject to the same improbabilities as God. Right now, physicists are working on how to combine gravity with the other forces. There are many ways that they are going about doing this, from hypothesizing m theory from combination of string and supergravity theories, adding an eleventh dimension. Gravitons are a hypothesis after m theory, suggesting that gravity's relative weakness could be so because it is actually 'leaking' into other dimensions, as a particle called a graviton.
"Let me state once more, that I never stated God was an explanation. God is not an explanation, and He never will be. Richard Dawkins, however, seems to believe that God is an explanation, even though He's not. God created the basis of everything, but that doesn't make him an explanation for anything. Just because He made it doesn't mean that's the reason it works. After all, a watch doesn't run just because a watchmaker made it."
Several things are wrong with this quote. First up is your metaphor, a literary device you seem oh so proud of. A watch does work after a watchmaker makes it, provided he put in every single part. This includes all particles. You repeatedly claim that God is not an explanation, and yet you use him as an explanation for the origin of the universe. If he created the universe, he is the explanation for it. This explanation is invalid because God's origin is too unlikely. Therefore he must not have been the first thing to exist. Therefore he didn't create everything. You keep spinning around this point because you can't refute it, again and again spewing things out of your ass like "god is not an explanation for anything".
"Are you not aware that history is the study of ourselves? It's not the studies of the cosmos, but of humanity's actions. The only thing relevant in history is how humanity has reacted to itself and to nature. As I'm part of the human race, my actions are significant to humanity, and to history."
You seem to not understand the definition of significance. Just because an action has repercussions does not make it significant. The repercussions must start a chain that leads up to something big, something more than their immediate reactions. There is no way to prove what action does and doesn't do this, but that is irrelevant because you assume ALL of your actions do this.
"No. So, by your inability to come up with a valid argument you must instead pretend I said something else and argue against it instead, so that you actually have something to post?
I state that a god is not subject to comparison to humans because, surprise, a god isn't human. If a volcano kills a person, we don't call the volcano a murderer. We call the person a fool for standing in the way of a lava flow. The only thing capable of murder is another human."
You have a very odd sense of God. Volcanoes aren't even alive, and yet you compare them with the supposed supreme deity? You are essentially saying that, even though God has the emotions of a human, he is not subject to his own morality? Murder in the court may only apply to humans because humans are the only sapient species we interact with. But the Biblical stories which many hold to be true say that God kills without mercy, God tortures without mercy, and God destroys without mercy. And just because he isn't human in flesh and blood (although he is because Jesus was) he is not liable for what injustices he does.
You are quite aware that I do not believe this God exists, but my point is that he is a standard that religious people find perfect. Striving towards this kind of perfection does have societal consequences.
"Well that's fine and Christians certainly do believe it's unacceptable behavior but it's also against God's law."
That wasn't my point, again. You seem to miss these a lot. The fact that people follow it because God told them to is bad. These morals should be understood on a deeper level. Killing another human should not be seen as a violation of God's law but as a violation of the codes that keep our species intact. We should understand that it is not about God, but about the species.
"It sounds like you're trying to be sarcastic here, but no, they're not. Very few people read the Bible and decide for themselves that they should oppose a modern political issue. It was based on oral tradition and the people who wrote the Bible could hardly predict stem cell research. A preacher with an agenda tells them it's wrong and they're going to hell if they don't oppose it. This is not a flaw in Christian morals. This is a flaw in people and power."
Because there is some secret conspiracy behind the ban of gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion. Christian morals directly dictate that homoloveuality is evil. They dictate that everyone who disagrees with Christianity is evil. These Christian morals are all too prevalent in our society, and not because of hidden political agendas. Quite the opposite. They are there because people want their religion to be everyone's religion.
