Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]

…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?

…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]

It does not matter how we feel, God is just. We may not be able to comprehend or understand at the time why something is or even think it is unfair, however that does not mean that it is not just and right.[/quote]

…this sounds just like a generic Pavlovian respons to me Chris, but it’ll do. What about the demoninations question?
[/quote]

That is an interesting question, the reason you see different claims of truth in a religion is one of two things, tradition and heresy. With the JW, I would say heresy. With the Ethiopian Church I would say tradition. With Protestants it matters to what they are saying because there is so many of them that it maybe old heresy that have already been disputed or it may be a matter of tradition.

Now, when I say heresy it is always wrong (and is pertaining to Tradition), however tradition when people start bickering over tradition (with a lower case t for the semantic Nazi’s) that is the reason why there is so many Christian denominations.

Case in point: Sprinkling vs. Immersion vs. Running vs. &c.

There is dispute over what way is the correct way to baptize someone, this is a matter of tradition. In the Catholic Church it is Tradition to repent and baptize, however it is tradition to sprinkle a baby so as not to harm or startle the baby. However, with travel and being in a heavily Catholic population I have seen many different ways of baptism. The tradition changes from parish to parish and church to church. I have seen people immersed (or dunked under neath water) face up or face down, kneeling or standing. I have seen people have a glass of water over someones forehead. And yet outside of the Catholic Church I have seen Protestant Churches split into factions and latter into different Churches because of these differences.

Which is sad, because it is never good for a church to have such harshness between members over trivial issues of how water is supposed to be put on someone getting baptized or whatever thing may come up.

Yes there is a difference, there is an absolute truth. Now, the tricky part is what is absolute about it. Do you need baptism? Yes, is there a specific way you need to be baptized, to a point. As long as you baptize them in the trinity that is all that matters. I have seen Pagans (Followers of Voodoom) perform baptism on a dying child and it is considered valid. All is needed is you being serious in the action, water, and the saying as you baptize them, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Now what means of water someone uses is not absolute, even if you look at the Early Church Fathers they list I believe seven different ways to baptize someone.

Howev

182

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your beliefs differ from Tiribulus’, yet you both are christians. A couple of weeks ago there was an “incident” with push who believes something else, and yet is a christian. There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

Push didn’t believe something else, he is a creationist and I am not. In the end that shit doesn’t matter.
Jesus paraphrased all the scripture in Matthew when he was asked what are the greatest commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. He further said the two are equal in weight and that all the laws of the prophets are based on this.

Now, as an atheist, none of this shit will make sense. Among Christians, we are typically more similar than different but we are all different and we like to argue differences…
God is not as close minded as we are…

183

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God cannot become anything because He is eternally immutable. Malachi 3:6 I the Lord do not change and James 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. among others.
[/quote]

Oh, now you’re in for it. It’s Jesus time! Oh, wait…

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Except He can become flesh in the Son and dwell among us as a sinless man and then take His resurrected glorified body with Him to Heaven which makes no logical sense whatsoever.
[/quote]

And there is the recovery. Now we’re headed back towards the trinity issue. We definitely covered that in big detail so we won’t even go there.

Thanks for answering these questions though! Appreciate it.

184

[quote]ephrem wrote:

There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

No.

185

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]

…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?

…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]

It does not matter how we feel, God is just. We may not be able to comprehend or understand at the time why something is or even think it is unfair, however that does not mean that it is not just and right.[/quote]

Circular reasoning.

God is just, therefore Gods commands are just, and we know that God is just because his commands are.

I say thee nay.[/quote]

What are you talking about, where did I make circular reasoning. There is none there, all I said was that if you are a Christian it doesn’t matter what we feel, we believe God is just therefore our feelings do not make God’s ways just or not just.

186

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The bottom line is Augustine was right. There is a universal invisible church consisting of all true believers who will ever be redeemed regardless of what specific denomination they belong to. There also is and always has been a visible church consisting of those who claim the name of Christ regardless of whether they are true believers or not. They are known by their fruits which are both sound doctrine and a godly, though certainly imperfect life. One without the other indicates nothing except how insidious spiritual deception can be.
[/quote]
This really speaks to me. I would most definitely say that one of the biggest misconceptions of Christianity is what is Church, even evident in what some Christians say to each other like what Church do you go to etc…[/quote]

Becareful, the idea of Augustine holding that there is a invisible Church is up for debate and of course I am likely to deny the assertions although the idea of Mystici Corporis Christi I do take to be truth, however not an invisible Church.

187

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your beliefs differ from Tiribulus’, yet you both are christians. A couple of weeks ago there was an “incident” with push who believes something else, and yet is a christian. There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

Push didn’t believe something else, he is a creationist and I am not. In the end that shit doesn’t matter.
Jesus paraphrased all the scripture in Matthew when he was asked what are the greatest commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. He further said the two are equal in weight and that all the laws of the prophets are based on this.

Now, as an atheist, none of this shit will make sense. Among Christians, we are typically more similar than different but we are all different and we like to argue differences…
God is not as close minded as we are…[/quote]
Leaving Push out of this specifically, whatever this is you just described it is not the biblical Christian gospel. I may make enemies of you and every other person on this site, but God has been flawlessly faithful to me and I cannot stand silent without contending for His word and against this neo unitarian dilution of the truth you have here espoused.
The God of the bible is far MORE “close minded” than we are. His infinite holy mind is capable of nothing other than absolute absolutes. I know how this is gonna go and I will take no joy in it, but I must.

You can start by calling me a self righteous, intolerant, judgmental intellectual antique who represents all the reasons more people don’t believe.

188

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< We definitely covered that in big detail so we won’t even go there. >>>[/quote]
I agree. My intention was not to bring that discussion here. That topic has been very ably covered, mostly by Irishsteel, in that thread. I was only preempting an inevitable objection with the only answer possible.

189

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< We definitely covered that in big detail so we won’t even go there. >>>[/quote]
I agree. My intention was not to bring that discussion here. That topic has been very ably covered, mostly by Irishsteel, in that thread. I was only preempting an inevitable objection with the only answer possible.[/quote]

You’re preemptive strike was correctly done :slight_smile:

190

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The 2,000 threads about christianity just ain’t enough huh?[/quote]

There can never be enough.

I’m still trying to figure out why dying a horrible death on a cross is some admirable thing. Dying for the sins of strangers? Fuck 'em! They made their choices. Why let 'em off the hook?

Unselfishness, especially for random evil strangers, is wrong. It is especially NOT moral.
[/quote]
God’s love and forgiveness was put on the cross. No one except God is without sin, we must have god’s forgiveness and he did it because he loves us.

191

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.

192

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]

I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.

193

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]

I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.[/quote]

This thread was started to clear up misconceptions, not turn into a circle jerk for you and your faith-buddies.

Or am I mistaken there?

194

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]

I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.[/quote]

This thread was started to clear up misconceptions, not turn into a circle jerk for you and your faith-buddies.

Or am I mistaken there?[/quote]

Yes, clear up misconceptions. You are arguing about uncaused causes and infinite regression. Either way, Christians usually believe in God, matter of fact. The Uncaused causer. See, done. Topic finished at least the other Atheist/Agnostics get it. I mean they do ask follow up questions.

195

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]

I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.[/quote]

This thread was started to clear up misconceptions, not turn into a circle jerk for you and your faith-buddies.

Or am I mistaken there?[/quote]

Yes, clear up misconceptions. You are arguing about uncaused causes and infinite regression. Either way, Christians usually believe in God, matter of fact. The Uncaused causer. See, done. Topic finished at least the other Atheist/Agnostics get it. I mean they do ask follow up questions.[/quote]

I’m pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw. So often do people like me get the blame for apparently stifling debate. I wasn’t the one to bring up cosmological arguments. In fact I was responding to the OP. I would assume as the thread starter, he can take the thread where he wishes. I respond to his post, and you chime in claiming I’m apparently derailing the thread? I feel sorry for OP to have to be lumped in with such a small mind as yours.

Whatever, I’m done here. Have fun beating each other off.

196

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.[/quote]
Please allow me to clarify a bit further.

As far as hostile unbelievers are concerned, meaning those on a mission of malice toward Jesus and the gospel? Christ Himself equates arguing with them to “giving what is holy to dogs” and “casting pearls before swine” Matthew 7:6. Nuthin personal, it was His way of telling believers not to waste time with people who have demonstrated they are hell bent on attacking the gospel and turning your words back at you in endless argument.

I will spend the rest of my natural life with unbelievers who are just asking questions. Even very tough very skeptical ones, but I will not play on their field. I am not meaning to come down on anybody else, but like I said on the first page. They are dead. They cannot view science, logic and philosophy from your side of the spiritual grave. They can’t. It takes some discernment and lots of prayer to stay the course here. I love debating and it doesn’t take much for me to find myself doing the opposite of what I’m saying.

Last but not least are people claiming for themselves the name of Christ and who display either fatally heretical doctrine or a flagrantly sinful lifestyle or both. That is war and leads me to another titanic misconception about Christianity perpetuated many times by Christians themselves. Maybe the most abused 6 words ever ripped out of context in all of scripture. “Judge not lest ye be judged”. Blacksheep had a positively outstanding post about this in the trinity thread.

Jesus is warning against making personal judgments based upon what WE see and not what He says. Later in the passage in John 7:24 he says: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” . The apostle Paul says in Romans 16:17-18 "“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 he tells the church at Thessalonica "“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us”

In 1 Timothy chapter 1 he tells the young pastor: “For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.<<<>>> realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,” He goes on to name names: keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

After rebuking the Corinthians for tolerating gross immorality in which a man had his father’s wife Paul tells them in chapter 5 verses 12-13 "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church, But those who are outside, God judges. remove the wicked man from your midst. There is plenty more. We are in no position to tell sinners to believe and or act like saints, but those claiming Christ and hence members of the visible church we are COMMANDED to call them out and attempt to convince them if possible or clear the reproach and dishonor from His name if not. It all depends on how seriously you take that bible.

197

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.[/quote]
Please allow me to clarify a bit further.

As far as hostile unbelievers are concerned, meaning those on a mission of malice toward Jesus and the gospel? Christ Himself equates arguing with them to “giving what is holy to dogs” and “casting pearls before swine” Matthew 7:6. Nuthin personal, it was His way of telling believers not to waste time with people who have demonstrated they are hell bent on attacking the gospel and turning your words back at you in endless argument.

I will spend the rest of my natural life with unbelievers who are just asking questions. Even very tough very skeptical ones, but I will not play on their field. I am not meaning to come down on anybody else, but like I said on the first page. They are dead. They cannot view science, logic and philosophy from your side of the spiritual grave. They can’t. It takes some discernment and lots of prayer to stay the course here. I love debating and it doesn’t take much for me to find myself doing the opposite of what I’m saying.

Last but not least are people claiming for themselves the name of Christ and who display either fatally heretical doctrine or a flagrantly sinful lifestyle or both. That is war and leads me to another titanic misconception about Christianity perpetuated many times by Christians themselves. Maybe the most abused 6 words ever ripped out of context in all of scripture. “Judge not lest ye be judged”. Blacksheep had a positively outstanding post about this in the trinity thread.

Jesus is warning against making personal judgments based upon what WE see and not what He says. Later in the passage in John 7:24 he says: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” . The apostle Paul says in Romans 16:17-18 "“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 he tells the church at Thessalonica "“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us”

In 1 Timothy chapter 1 he tells the young pastor: “For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.<<<>>> realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,” He goes on to name names: keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

After rebuking the Corinthians for tolerating gross immorality in which a man had his father’s wife in the name of Christian liberty Paul tells them in chapter 5 verses 12-13 "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church, But those who are outside, God judges. remove the wicked man from your midst. There is plenty more. We are in no position to tell sinners to believe and or act like saints, but those claiming Christ and hence members of the visible church we are COMMANDED to call them out and attempt to convince them if possible or clear the reproach and dishonor from His name if not. It all depends on how seriously you take that bible.

[/quote]

Word, I don’t talk to skeptics, by definition they are only looking to destroy conclusions rather than come to one.

198

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]
Ur madara so who can trust you =P. Anyways you cannot have an infinite amount of causes going back in time because you end up with an infinite regress and nothing ever ends up happening which leads back to the first cause. This first cause is uncaused and exists out of shear necessity.[/quote]

Firstly who says you can’t and secondly saying God Did it doesn’t really answer any questions it just poses more.[/quote]
Its just logic for example let say that the universe is eternal and all of the other properties are the same as we see today or that time goes backwards an infinite amount of time for the universe. It would have taken an infinite amount of time for this conversation to have occurred which means it would have never happened.[/quote]

Time is a human construct though. Relatively this conversation could have taken an infinite amount of time.

199

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Kalam argument has flaws in the causal premise.

“…there is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable.” – J. L. Mackie.

Also:

B = things that begin to exist
C = things that are caused
u = the universe

  1. all B is C
  2. u is B
  3. u is C

Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist, “all B” is equivalent to “u”, thus rendering the actual argument circular:

  1. u is C
  2. u is B
  3. u is C[/quote]
    I don’t think you watched the video since the argument is presented not as a syllogism but as 3 exhaustive dilemmas . The first quote only has weight against the causal premise in an empirical approach or an inductive generalization of reality only if your argument “the universe is the only thing that began to exist” stands. It has no weight against the causal premise in a metaphysical approach or as a necessary truth that applies to all reality and logic especially when one considers what nothing really is. It isn’t a dark “empty” void as many of us imagine as there is still space-time, zero point energy and a rich sea of sub atomic particles resulting from the properties of the space. Nothing is literally nothing, at the singularity there is no space, time etc…
    Second for your argument that the universe is the only thing that began to exist. You have to hold that nothing else came into existence since then or that things coming into existence is equivalent to the universe coming into existence. I did not exist when the universe began to exist, but I began to exist and exist now. The stuff I am made of doesn’t make me who I am since all the atoms of our body are replaced periodically over time. I would watch the video and if you want to go to where your objection is answered go watch at 38:00.[/quote]

Problem is that none of what you say above relates to the real current theories of the origin of the universe.[/quote]
Here’s the video, so you say the big bang theory isn’t current? - YouTube [/quote]

Exactly. The so called big bang theory is now seen as a description of a local part of the currently more popular expansion theory.

The whole first there was nothing and then it exploded is about 20 years out of date.[/quote]
It would be nice if you put some links for this so called expansion theory[/quote]

I love the way you say ‘so called expansion theory’ it would be like me referring to the ‘so called bible’

In fact I got my theories muddled, the one you should be looking up is inflation theory (expansion theory is related)

Here is a link to get you started

200

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Someone name me something that has been proven to exist without physical evidence? Even objects that we cannot see are proven true by the effects they have on other objects:

For instance:

  • Even though Black holes cannot be seen, they can be located based on the gravitational pull on the objects around them.

It is difficult to use pure logic to prove the existence of God as we have no way of verifying this. Previous logical arguments we’ve made into the existence of objects we cannot see can be proven or dis proven by their effects on other things.
[/quote]

There is none that I am aware of, however there is physical evidence of God’s effects on others.[/quote]

Well actually there is:

  1. Order. Basically, its as if the universe was fine tuned for our existance. I can elaborate if anyone wants.

  2. Assuming the universe had a beginning, and the beginning was the Big Bang, how does an explosive event, which requires the input of energy (explosive events need a catalyst), get started? What was this catalyst, and where did it come from?

  3. The law of entropy. The universe and all that is in it is in a constant state of decay, moving from order to disorder. How does a universe headed towards DISORDER produce ORDER? [/quote]

  1. we are fine tuned to the universe, not the other way round

  2. Has nothing to do with God, and just because the Universe had a begining doesn’t mean there was nothing before that begining.

  3. Happens all the time, randomly dropping sand through your hand will produce an ordered pyramid on the ground for instance.