Also, fantastic post by vagabond, not that I'm surprised. 

Look, one cannot answer such questions without getting into deep trouble or getting called a "revisionist" or "antisemitic". I'd suggest you read and do some research on your own and draw your own conclusions, I won't handle out any links, but please don't hesitate to listen to BOTH sides of the story. What the media of the winning side says will always be half of the truth or perhaps even worse. I've researched out of my own curiosity because the lies that get uncovered daily, the corruption and the use of the masses is just too much. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've researched and most of my information comes from reliable sources that offer direct quotation from the original documents.

As for the first part of your post, yes, I didn't check on that experiment. Now that I did, there's a viewpoint actually agreeing with what I said about people having faith in authority:

"In his book Irrational Exuberance, Yale Finance Professor Robert Shiller argues that other factors might be partially able to explain the Milgram Experiments:      "[People] have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does not seem so. (In fact, it is worth noting that in this case the experimenter was indeed correct: it was all right to continue giving the 'shocks' — even though most of the subjects did not suspect the reason.)"

Milgram himself provides some anecdotal evidence to support this position. In his book, he quotes an exchange between a subject (Mr. Rensaleer) and the experimenter. The subject had just stopped at 255 V, and the experimenter tried to prod him on by saying: "There is no permanent tissue damage." Mr. Rensaleer answers:      "Yes, but I know what shocks do to you. I’m an electrical engineer, and I have had shocks ... and you get real shook up by them — especially if you know the next one is coming. I’m sorry."

Now about the "deep inside" knowledge. Look, humanity has been evolving both culturally and intelectually througout the years. It's of course reasonable to expect lack of skills, in this case morals, as we go back in time, or if we study civilisations that live under cruel regimes and out of fear.

Freedom, justice and democracy let our inner morality to get better with time. And as we know, the more knowledge we have the less we will be deceived. I think it all comes down to who is guiding us as humans, and what our individual values are. Everyone is responsible and conscious about their actions, but when we get deceived our judging is then tainted with that posion and we will act and take decisions without being completely free (as lies take away freedom, ignorance is a way of slaving people). So perhaps you may ask, why did such and such things happened throughout history? I'd say it's because of the ignorance of people believing that the purpose of their actions was for their well being, but there's always someone behind the curtains who knows the whole truth. That one person is the evil/good one, only those who know all the truth can be judged accordingly. So as you can see morals aren't subjective, but are subject to the amount of information you have.

A quick example: If someone tells you they are going to shoot and kill your mother and you are in front of her and can kill that man to save her would you not do it? And then you realize that wasn't your mother when her face is unveiled and that someone used you to kill another person... Do you believe you are guilty of the MORALITY of the action? I mean you did kill the man but you did it because you were hidden the truth and acted up to the circumstances.

1.  I don't understand why oyu refuse to give me sources for that information you claim to have. 

2.  I don't understand what any of what you talked about has to do with American entry into WW2.  AFAIK, we did not enter the war because of the concentration camps, at all.  You have not answered my question about what sort of false pretenses you are talking about.  Do you think Pearl Harbor was deliberately made vulnerable or something? 

Moving on to the authority figures point, you're saying a lot of people follow authority figures even when they tell them to do bad things, because they are used to the stuff they are told to do being good even when it doesn't seem so?  That's an interesting point, and a good one, but I don't think it fully explains the Milgram Experiment. 

I mean, I got this from WIkipedia:  "The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.

"At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner." 

There's not really any way to spin that as being an acceptable part of a study on memory.  The fact that they were fooled and people weren't really being killed is immaterial to the study.  Some people did manage to resist authority like your electrician, but he was the exception to the rule, probably because of his personal experience with electrical shocks (in his particular case). 

It seems that you agree that morals change over time, so you are not really absolutist.  I think vagabond would agree with me when I say that most people have internalized a basic set of strong morals that are important to our society, but that doesn't mean that the "social good" model of morals isn't being followed just because they are deeply ingrained. 

1. Because it's not "well seen" to be revising history, much less on an English based website. I mean, I'd do it privately but not publicly. Even if what I say might be true, I would be offending many people.

2. Of course they didn't attack Germany because they had concentrattion camps, the motives are much more deep than those. In fact Pearl Harbour was USA's excuse to fight a war that wasn't even beneficial for the USA per se. Much like what happened during WW1, with the difference that WW2 was filled with ideological motives behind every decision.


I don't agree with morals changing over time, but rather humanity evolving and understanding better the true laws of morality. Accepting past mistakes and not making them again. Much like our understanding of physics evolved through the years. We humans have been developing intelectually, culturally and spiritually since we began to exist (which btw is another interesting topic to go through, where do we come from?) and so as we mature as a civilisation, we do so in every area of reality. It's difficult for someone believing the opposite to see it, as it is difficult for me to think about how can everything be subjective. Moral relativism nullifies the term morality, because there are no more rights or wrongs, as everything is relative, and then that subjectivity is also nullified as there is nothing good or bad a person can have relative views about.

If you are careful to be accurate and have good sources for your arguments, and you're willing to accept criticism of your arguments and sources, screw the people who scream BIGOTRY. 

Of course, I have to say upfront that I am extremely skeptical.  But I won't press for more details here since it is kind of off topic. 

So are you saying that there are perfect moral laws hardwired into people, that previous civilizations failed to realize but that we are getting closer to understanding? 

Highwaystar I find it interesting you say this:

 Physics is a consequence of infinite chance. If an infinite (or incredibly large) amount of Universes existed, then there would be an unimaginable amount of combinations.

hhhmm...I wonder if this hypothesis takes some, dare I say, Faith to believe it to be true. Can you observe infinite universes? no. You may think this possibility would explain why our universe was the so called "lucky" one that turned out this way, because you think this possibility is more likely than a creator. May I add that believing there is a creator that set all of the laws of nature, laws of the universe, and laws of logic in place is much easier than believing that we are the "lucky" universe out of an infinate amount of universes. I know some where in your clouded conscious you know that a creator exists. Go ahead and say im making a false presumption, but I honestly believe that somewhere in that God given mind of yours you realize that the possibility of God existing does indeed make sense and evidence can be seen of this if you were to allow yourself to accept it. I think you don't want to accept it, because you don't want to believe that something that powerful could exist.

When I make the comment, "I understand there is no way to measure God with science", maybe I am using the wrong wording. What I am trying to say is that the concept of God makes more sense than any other explanation of our origin, however no tool, or method of study we can use can understand or capture the full essence and knowledge that our creator possesses. in light of your beliefs just "humor" me here for a moment. If a being that created everything we see, touch, feel, hear, and can study truly exists then that being would be more powerful than anything ever known to man, correct? Can a man create gravity when he is given nothing to accomplish it with? Can man create something such as mathematics, or physics into existence? of course not. These are things that have existed ever since humans existed. Trying to study a being that created the ability of study and logic itself is incomprehensible. You can know that this being has more power than you have ever seen, but if its infinite power then man cant possibly fully comprehend it through study. In an earlier post you said that "if God truly created everything then we would see evidence in every atom, surely." Actually we do see evidence of a creator in every atom if you have the correct view and understanding. what we know is that an atom consists of proton, neutrons, and electrons. What formed these? There needs to be some kind of energy with force and knowledge in place to make something. We even see similarities in Atoms that we see in our solar system. The electrons revolve around the nucleus when you examine an atom. There is order established. Highwaystar, you cannot have nothing in the beginning and come out with logic. Has matter always existed then? Has energy always existed then? Has logic always existed then? If matter and energy need logic to create other matter and the laws of our universe then that is an intelligent being and therefore our universe would have begun with intelligent design. Physics indeed does require a creator or the concept of physics could not possibly exist apart from the logic to create it.

Even if there were infinite universes then how did all of those begin without any logic or intelligence to create them? I don't understand why you cannot accept this. I'm not trying to say that you are dumb, because honestly it sounds like you have studied a great deal. I just think you are confused, and I dont mean it in a cruel or insulting way. I argue this, because I care.

Allfreedom, I bet highwaystar can answer for himself better than I can answer for him, but since he hasn't I can't bear to let a lot of that sit there. 

You completely fail to understand that science is not faith-based.  The infinite universes idea is not believed because people just have faith in it, there is mathematics to support that it could be true.  And if there was other evidence later that showed it wasn't true, highwaystar and others would not have a problem saying "Okay, I guess that idea is wrong".  In fact, HWS even said, "It's just a thought. There could be any amount of hypotheses."  He didn't present that as "the truth", he presented it as a possibility.  Is God just a possibility for you? 

IIRC, electrons and atomic nuclei do not behave like planets and stars.  If you think that an electron orbits the nucleus just like a planet orbits its star, I believe (evidence not faith) that you are thinking of an oversimplification of an atomic model that is itself considered outdated though useful due to its simplicity. 

And you don't understand:  the CONCEPT of physics doesn't need to exist for the universe to work.  That is just our way of understanding the universe. 

I think it's you who can't accept the idea of the universe not needing God to exist.  So you fool yourself.  The smarter people are, the more cleverly they can fool themselves. 

Ok, so going backwards on your reply in that im alex trebek demanding questions or else I refuse to respond to everything. Which by the way you did give me a laugh remembering all the saturday night live skits of will farrell doing Alex Trebek. But thats completely random and besides the point :). To answer you on this, I simply don't have time to spend every moment reading everyones posts. I do admit anything that is addresse to me I read everything. Other posts I may pick out pieces from posts and then read the ones fully that intrigue me. I also simply dont have time to try and answer everything in a reply especially the long replys you sometimes give. to be a little more personal, I work full time, have a pregnant wife, my mother law is currently living with us (YIKES!) since her husband died last year, and I try to get my video gaming in when I can of course :). Yes Im a married gamer nerd soon to be daddy. (although if you saw me I dont have the nerd look. honestly.) And yes we are all nerds here. lets admit it. Not to say everyone else on this forum dosn't have busy lives, but I personally will reply to the things that I think need to be rebuttled with the amount of time I want to spend on them. I could answer everything on your post if your willing to wait a day and a half. Your current post here has a wide range of topics of rabit trails I could go down and if I responded to everything you would probably be reading a small book. I don't want to put you through that as Im sure my beliefs are nonsense to you as well as probably commical just judging from your posts and beliefs.
I will try to make this a brief as I possibly can:

1. to answer your first paragraph. of course I saw beauty. that just shows me the capabilities of a creators design. Fractals are indeed very beautiful. It still dosn't prove that mathematics is somehow outside the concept of God's nature. So im not sure your of your point is in bringing these up.

2. Second,third,fourth paragraph. Of course I will admit that you can't always use common sense on everything. Some things in life you surely cannot make sense of. This may not be the best example, but my mind cannot comprehend infinite time but I understand what its property is. infinite time dosn't make sense to me. Neither an infinite universe, of which I understand there is a debate whether the universe is infinite or finite. I don't know for sure how far the universe expands, but we definately aren't close to finding an end and there may be no end. My mind can't comprehend something with no end to it, but I know infinite space could possibly exist. Also gravity is something that I know is hard for scientists to even comprehend. The video was very interesting as it does show that some things just dont make sense to us. I still don't see how this disproves that there is so much evidence for creation by an intelligent being.

3.fifth and sixth paragraph. The laws of physics rely on the laws of mathematics. If in our universe 1 plus 1 did not equal 2, but 3, then our universe would be a chaotic one in which physics could not transpire. The laws of mathematics say that 0 equals 0 and 1 plus 1 is definitley 2. 1 plus 1 is not sometimes 3 or sometimes 0. Excuse me but did mankind create the laws of mathematics? no. Mathematics existed in the universe before mankind existed. Physics without the laws of mathematics could not be possible. The laws of mathematics can be understood by the laws of logic no doubt. We cannot imagine the laws of logic could be any different than what they are. You cannot have both "A" and "not A" at the same time in the same relationship. The laws of logic do not contradict itself. With no laws of logic you and I could not have rational thinking and therefore would not be speaking to eachother rationally. If you change something in the laws of say mathematics or the laws of logic then all of the laws could not work in unison. They all have certain laws and properties and therefore work together perfectly. So we see laws of consistency. In consistensy and logic we see an intelligent creator. its not that hard to comprehend.

4.eighth paragraph: every human being on this planet indeed has a conscience. Indeed there are people who just kill and rape and appear to have no remorse for their actions. Those people are sick and have mental illnesses no doubt. Those people don't even know or understand what they are doing. They dont understand what life even is. You admitted to me that you have personal morals. If we truly are just properties of chemical reactions then absolutely no morals should exist. If I steal your wallet and you say I was wrong to do that then I could say my morals say that I can steal people's wallets. chemical reactions does not have morals that they live by. From this standpoint if I was to say "murder is wrong" then it should be no different than saying, "my favorite color is blue". these would all just be opinions and not accepted morality in society. Answer me this, if human beings are simply chemical accidents then why should any of us be concerned about what eachother does?  We dont get mad at baking soda for reacting with vinegar do we? This is just how chemicals act. Do you understand this?

The quote says that the universe and the stars dont care. well thats true, because they have no conscience and therefore no moral obligation to us. If a meteor falls from the universe and crushes someone it has no conscience to care indeed.I don't see how this trys to prove that there is no creator. Are you happy now that I answered virtually everything you said and had comments on them? I hope so.

0.  I understand that you have a life and may not be able to spend all day on VGChartz reading and writing responses.  But when you DO respond to someone's post, and it's not on topic at all but goes off in some random other direction without addressing the other guy's points, that is seriously aggravating.  Do you realize that that is not the way to have a discussion? 

On the other hand, it's totally reasonable to try to rein the discussion in and keep it from going on too many tangents, or even to say "I don't know too much about that and don't want to research it just to argue you" or whatever. 

1.  Actually I guess I was bringing that up due to misremembering what you'd said about you vs. atheists appreciating the universe aesthetically, so you could say I didn't really have a point.  But while we're on the subject, mathematics is in fact a human creation.  See point 3. 

2.  And what evidence is there for creation by an intelligent being?  I'd say none.  All we know is that something happened to cause the Big Bang, that cause is still the source of much speculation.  It could be something caused by another universe, either a natural occurrence or intelligent action (accidental or intentional).  Just because the universe turned out the way it did, having physical consistency and makeup that allowed life to form, isn't proof of anything. 

3.  (A)  PHYSICS doesn't rely on anything.  Things happen in the universe and that's that.  They generally can be counted on to happen in consistent ways, but according to highwaystar that may not be universally true (heh heh).  The "laws" of physics are just theories that have stood up so well that people consider them so basic, and so surely right, that they are called laws. 

(B)  I'm not a mathematician, so someone might correct me on this part, but I seriously doubt I'm wrong:  1 and 1 make 2 because of the definitions of 1 and 2.  It's all just playing with numbers.  Humans have the numbers in their heads and put them together and take them apart, and recently we've taken to doing it in REALLY fancy ways that can teach us a lot of things about the mathematical relationships, but it's all just us.  There is no universe where adding one and one make 3 because the rules of mathematics are definitional, not contingent on reality.  God didn't "make" the laws of mathematics any more than the people who went around discovering the theorems. 

(C)  Again, physics being consistent isn't proof of God.  Mathematical consistency certainly isn't, because the consistency is inherent.  For all I know, and for all you probably know, the universe's physical consistency, if it is consistent, is also an inherent property of it. 

4.  "If we truly are just properties of chemical reactions then absolutely no morals should exist."  This is completely wrong.  It is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint and from a society's standpoint that people have morals against killing etc. except for good reason.  A species, or a society, would not survive if they went around doing the equivalent of "knifing each other for giggles".  This has been explained to you before but you apparently did not pay attention, or if you did you have not seen fit to argue why we are mistaken.  Therefore those morals would develop for good WORLDLY reasons without God's involvement at all.  (Keep in mind that to a primitive culture, "the sun god needs sacrifices for a good harvest" may be a good reason to kill someone.  Even today some cultures justify killing people when someone feels their honor has been insulted.) 

When you say stuff like, where's the morality in baking soda reacting with vinegar?, it just seems ridiculous.  In fact, I think you say it because it's ridiculous, and you're trying to claim that if people are solely physical beings (electric currents included), then we would be just as amoral as that chemical reaction.  Well, whoever fed you that line of bullshit, you should go back and throw it in their face because it is completely ignorant.  I've explained above (briefly) why evolution of purely physical beings, without God implanting rules in our brains with heavenly microchips, is perfectly sufficient for the development of morals.  Animals are unimaginably more complex collections of chemicals than baking soda and vinegar, so it makes sense that our behavior would be as complex as it is.  If you want to discuss that in more detail then we can do that. 

5.  The quote was what I thought was a really good statement of why the universe is not as bleak for an atheist as lots of religious types seem to think.  I guess it rolled off you like water off a duck's back, but whatever.  It wasn't trying to "prove" there's no God, and I really don't know why you thought that's what I was trying to do with it.  It was another way of answering the question, "if there's no God what does it matter if we all murder each other?"  You don't need God to have right and wrong, and behave accordingly, believe it or not. 

6.  Yes, I'm glad that we're having an actual discussion instead of ... well, I'm glad. 

Did you not understand what I was saying? I didn't say that's what I reckon happened, I was calling you on your false dichotomy by giving an equally valid hypothesis for the laws of physics as your God.

Your argument is literally along the lines of "I can't explain this, so it must be God". No, you don't know the reason physics exists, I don't know the reason, nobody can honestly say they know the reason! You can not offer a dichotomy in this case.

Ultimately, your God is the God of gaps!

I don't mean to be harsh, but the difference between you and me is that you're willing to jump to a baseless conclusion using only your predispositions in life, whereas I'm willing to take in the facts and theories and be forthcoming when I say I do or do not know the answer.

As for detecting other Universes. Yes, other Universes have been theorised in rather elegant mathematics (but unfortunately unconfirmable with any forseeable tests). Further than that it has been hypothesised that we can detect other Universes by analysing "cold" spots in the cosmic microwave background radiation (source). But again, who really knows for sure yet? I would say the likelihood is yes, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

As for your second paragraph, I really think you should try answering the last question I posted to you before you make statements like "What formed these? There needs to be some kind of energy with force and knowledge in place to make something." If everything somehow requires pre-existing energy, force(?) and knowledge (?!?) then what energy, force and kowledge created your God?

I'm not in the mood for a theology debate, so I might drop out.