You are behaving as though you have read books.. ... I implore you to read. ..OSHO BOOKS OVER 200.. TRY IT AND GIVE COMMENT on the Subject herein. Best of luck.
Book of wisdom
Book of nothing
The rebellion spirit.
Etc.

Oluwaseytiano . Hitler abandoned Christianity and became an atheist .

Oluwaseytiano:
HaHaHa

Wassup bro

KingEbukaNaija:
Oluwaseytiano . Hitler abandoned Christianity and became an atheist .

so his lack o f fate drove him to kill millions? How about Queen Mary 1 or countess Elizabeth Bathory or even the countless priest turned prosecutor during the Spanish inquisition? Were the Christians turn atheist too?

Oluwaseytiano:
so his lack o f fate drove him to kill millions? How about Queen Mary 1 or countess Elizabeth Bathory or even the countless priest turned prosecutor during the Spanish inquisition? Were the Christians turn atheist too?

Negro,
Violence and brutality has been meted for all reasons.....fact remains Hitler was not a Christian. Try and get another poster boy

vooks:

Negro,
Violence and brutality has been meted for all reasons.....fact remains Hitler was not a Christian. Try and get another poster boy

now who is stalking who?

Oluwaseytiano:
now who is stalking who?

You are

I read about 70 pages of the book and the illogicality in the book threw me off.
I'll point out just two...

The writer wrote the familiar argument that something can ever come out nothing, yet failed to apply the question to God. From whence came God?

He also advocates the argument that God is the giver of morality, that western Europe is a cesspit of women trafficking and prostitution.

This is an attempt to muddle up arguments prostitution should not be considered immoral by any right thinking human as long as the prostitute willing delved into it.

Sex trafficking on the other hand is completely immoral and repugnant. There are not the same. Sex trafficking is a global menace, it plagues not just Europe but the whole world.

The southern states of USA (also known as the bible belt) leads in a lot of negative statistics.

Someone compiled a few data on the link below

(http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/175744-Bible-Belt-leads-in-divorces-murders-teen-pregnancy-and-STD-infection-rates)

Excerpts from the link:
Study on divorce rates by various religious groups (including aethists) in the US: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm the finding is that Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate of any group in the entire US. So much for family values.

Study which shows the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.ph...ticle_ID=10961

Facts about teen pregnancy (including which states have highest teen pregnancy rates): http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf Those kids in the bible belt sure do like to get knocked up young.

National and State-Specific Pregnancy Rates Among White Adolescents in the United States, 1995--1997: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053654.htm

TOP 20

1....TX......106
2.....NM......104
3.....DEL.....102
4.....AK...100
5.....ARK.....87
6.....GA.......85
7.....ALA.....84
8.....NC.....84
9.....OR.....84
10....TN....82
11....KS...79
12....NY.....78
13....KY.....77
14....CO....73
15....SC.....72
16....LA.....69
17.....ME.....69
18.....MISS.....68
19.....WVA.....68
20....OHIO....67

How come the bible belt who take instructions from the so called giver of morality are comparatively more immoral than the liberal states?

GeneralShepherd:
I read about 70 pages of the book and the illogicality in the book threw me off.
I'll point out just two...

The writer wrote the familiar argument that something can ever come out nothing, yet failed to apply the question to God. From whence came God?

Let's dwell on this for now.
We can't explain where God came from. Ho does this help the scientific enigma of everything starting from nothing?

vooks:


Let's dwell on this for now.
We can't explain where God came from. Ho does this help the scientific enigma of everything starting from nothing?

Hmmm... If something can't come out of nothing whence came God?

As for me as a logical person (and a lot of atheist I know), I don't know the origin of the universe. God is not a logical answer!

GeneralShepherd:


Hmmm... If something can't come out of nothing whence came God?

As for me as a logical person (and a lot of atheist I know), I don't know the origin of the universe. God is not a logical answer!

Thank you. You plead IGNORANCE of the origin of the universe. So the theist does not know the origin of God while the atheist does not know the origin of the universe. Both have to approach life with presuppositions, right?

vooks:


Thank you. You plead IGNORANCE of the origin of the universe. So the theist does not know the origin of God while the atheist does not know the origin of the universe. Both have to approach life with presuppositions, right?

Wrong. Atheists know that the universe had a beginning, a start date.

Do theists know that their Gods have a point of origin? Who is the god's father? Mother?

Weah96:


Wrong. Atheists know that the universe had a beginning, a start date.

Of course,
'In the beginning God' vs 'in the beginning NOTHING!'
Which is sensible?

Do theists know that their Gods have a point of origin? Who is the god's father? Mother?

You are reversing yourself. You plead IGNORANCE to Origins

vooks:

Of course,
'In the beginning God' vs 'in the beginning NOTHING!'
Which is sensible?


You are reversing yourself. You plead IGNORANCE to Origins

You can't be serious. Let me repeat myself.

The universe had a beginning. What this beginning was, no human knows for sure. I don't know doesn't equate to "we came from NOTHING." There are many speculations, however.

That's the position of the atheist.

The theist position is that he KNOWS what this beginning was because the thing commissioned a book and even SPEAKS to him today.

When atheists say there is no god, it doesn't mean that the universe didn't have a beginning. It doesn't mean that we came from NOTHING. Those are examples of a non sequitur.

If you're talking to the beginning of the universe somehow and you can't prove that a conversation with this thing occurred, then you are telling lies about an imaginary creature.

Weah96:


Wrong. Atheists know that the universe had a beginning, a start date.

Do theists know that their Gods have a point of origin? Who is the god's father? Mother?

God is eternal .

KingEbukaNaija:


God is eternal .

That's why it doesn't exist. Hahaha.

Weah96:


You can't be serious. Let me repeat myself.

The universe had a beginning. What this beginning was, no human knows for sure. I don't know doesn't equate to "we came from NOTHING." There are many speculations, however.

That's the position of the atheist.

The theist position is that he KNOWS what this beginning was because the thing commissioned a book and even SPEAKS to him today.

When atheists say there is no god, it doesn't mean that the universe didn't have a beginning. It doesn't mean that we came from NOTHING. Those are examples of a non sequitur.

If you're talking to the beginning of the universe somehow and you can't prove that a conversation with this thing occurred, then you are telling lies about an imaginary creature.

You are tying yourself in knots.
The difference between theists and atheists is not whether the universe had a beginning, but HOW it began. We all know it had a beginning.Perhaps you are ignorant of naturalism as well, in which case I will gladly educate you.
The 'logician' atheist insists EVERYTHING started from NOTHING in and of itself. Please don't reply before you go through this. Ignorance is expensive!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

vooks:


You are tying yourself in knots.
The difference between theists and atheists is not whether the universe had a beginning, but HOW it began. We all know it had a beginning.Perhaps you are ignorant of naturalism as well, in which case I will gladly educate you.
[size=18pt]The 'logician' atheist insists EVERYTHING started from NOTHING in and of itself.[/size]

Nothing? Show me one atheist on planet earth who claims or has stated that something came from NOTHING.

Please.

Weah96:


Nothing? Show me one atheist on planet earth who claims or has stated that something came from NOTHING.

Please.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Atheism is a crutch for people who are afraid of the Light

vooks:



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Atheism is a crutch for people who are afraid of the Light

You sabi dance oh. Did you not read my question? I said show me a human atheist who says that something comes from nothing.

Something comes from nothing. Show me an atheist on NL or on earth who says that. You are directing me to a blog post. Is the author an atheist?

.

Weah96:


You sabi dance oh. Did you not read my question? I said show me a human atheist who says that something comes from nothing.

Something comes from nothing. Show me an atheist on NL or on earth who says that. You are directing me to a blog post. Is the author an atheist?

They are atheists

vooks:

They are atheists

No they're not. You're making it up. One is a science writer, robotics mostly, the others are Chinese physicists (probably all from the same village).

They're still NOT saying that something came from NOTHING. All they did was provide several reasons why the Wheeler-Dewitt equation is possible. From one of your blog links, I believe the first one:

According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum – a state absent of space, time or matter – can give rise to virtual particle pairs. Ordinarily these pairs self-annihilate almost instantly, but if these virtual particles separate immediately, they can avoid annihilation, creating a true vacuum bubble. The Wuhan team’s equations show that such a bubble has the potential to expand exponentially, causing a new universe to appear. All of this begins from quantum behavior and leads to the creation of a tremendous amount of matter and energy during the inflation stage.

(Note that as stated in this paper, the metastable false vacuum has “neither matter nor space or time,” but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.” While most of us wouldn’t be inclined to call this “nothing,” physicists do refer to it as such.)

It's up to you to understand that nothing must be something and they tell you that it is. Or ask questions if your teacher chooses to use that word in class.

Lol , check this video of Richard Dawkins on "literally" nothing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

Richirich713:
Lol , check this video of Richard Dawkins on "literally" nothing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

Well for something with no space occupying properties, and without matter, and no time demonstrating properties, to have been the source of the Big Bang is mind boggling. Because it is technically NOTHING. It's like the SMALLEST POSSIBLE particle POSSIBLE which isn't really a thing anymore.

Although that is not the STRANGEST thing I've read in quantum physics by far.

Weah96:


No they're not. You're making it up. One is a science writer, robotics mostly, the others are Chinese physicists (probably all from the same village).

I think you are being dumb on purpose. It's like one can't be an atheist if they are a scientist

They're still NOT saying that something came from NOTHING. All they did was provide several reasons why the Wheeler-Dewitt equation is possible. From one of your blog links, I believe the first one:

Are you literate? Did you miss this?
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

It's up to you to understand that nothing must be something and they tell you that it is. Or ask questions if your teacher chooses to use that word in class.

How can you be helped if you lack simple comprehension skills?

Weah96:


Well for something with no space occupying properties, and without matter, and no time demonstrating properties, to have been the source of the Big Bang is mind boggling. Because it is technically NOTHING. It's like the SMALLEST POSSIBLE particle POSSIBLE which isn't really a thing anymore.

Although that is not the STRANGEST thing I've read in quantum physics by far.

It is not MIND boggling nor is it STRANGEST.....it is sheer lunacy
That 'something' without matter,space or time is exactly NOTHING

vooks:

I think you are being dumb on purpose. It's like one can't be an atheist if they are a scientist

Are you literate? Did you miss this?
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf


How can you be helped if you lack simple comprehension skills?

Scientists can be atheists, but you must KNOW this somehow. They never mentioned religious affiliation, so until you can show me how you know they're atheists, I'll assume that you are making it up.

But it is not nothing. It's the metastable false vacuum. Nothing is a sensationalist term that draws attention to the problem.

vooks:


It is not MIND boggling nor is it STRANGEST.....it is sheer lunacy
That 'something' without matter,space or time is exactly NOTHING

I've heard quantum physics described by worse names.

Weah96:


I've heard quantum physics described by worse names.

I hate to point this out but if you had the eye for details and if your brains are fast enough, you'd have noted the 'nothing' in the equation is actually a 'metastable false vacuum'....a space in as many words.

vooks:

I hate to point this out but if you had the eye for details and if your brains are fast enough, you'd have noted the 'nothing' in the equation is actually a 'metastable false vacuum'....a space in as many words.

LOL. It's CLEARLY not a space, because a space is something.

That's why it's called a FALSE vacuum. Besides, they TELL you in the links that YOU provided that it doesn't have space, matter, or time. Only for you to come here and say its space? SMH.

Stop insulting and pay attention.

Weah96:



LOL. It's CLEARLY not a space, because a space is something.

That's why it's called a FALSE vacuum. Besides, they TELL you in the links that YOU provided that it doesn't have space, matter, or time. Only for you to come here and say its space? SMH.

Stop insulting and pay attention.

Don't be dumb

once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears.

'Quantum fluctuations' create a vacuum that then expands.
So we start with NOTHING, then a false vacuum, then expanding space

Young man go back to school. Start with a false vacuum