Re: The reason why Christianity is fake

If I make a government based around god is that alone supposed to make it work? Ok here's my religion: Robinism, it's Christianity in the town called rob, but that's it, it's based on Christianity, and you can't steal. can't murder and all that from the bible. But wait, now there's different interpretations here, does that mean you can murder but you won't be punished until god does it to you in the afterlife from your sin?

I don't accept that reasoning at all.  That starts with the premise, "If I was the Christian god then, this is the way I would run a society on earth."

I was showing you how religion and materialism based governments dont make a government succeed or fail, it's the design on the government in relation to things called laws and regulations, and moral rules and freedoms and such. Saying a government based on materialism should work because it's based on materialism is like saying a government based on religion should work because it's based on religion, which I have shown is not true for either case. Again, it is the organization of the government itself in many aspects as a whole that decide whether or not it will succeed or fail and in the big picture, has nothing to do with whatever source it was derived from.

because if you say the universe didn't always just 'exist', then something had to create it. that implies a creator... who created the creator? Do you know?

This is an elementary point in the intelligent design argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhMmJPnnDo

That is not a point, it's a delusion. Let me explain exactly what that man is telling everyone. He is saying that you don't need an explanation for an explanation, and uses the analogy of archaelogists finding arrowheads and not having an explanation for their creator yet. The difference is the archaeologists can hypothesize that something was developed which developed the arrow heads. For instance people. They are not saying that the arrow heads always existed, that would be inventing a new physical law. So the difference between what the speaker is saying and what the archaeologists say is that the speakers version: if you can explain something, that's the end of it, you're done, it's up to the next guy to explain your explanation. scientist version: if you can explain something, it must have a basis that can be further investigated upon to prove it. You can keep researching arrowheads and eventually find out an indian tribe did it. You cannot draw the same linear thinking that a creator created the universe, something created the creator, something created the creators creator, something created the creators creator creator, etc etc for infinity. That doesn't end, the arrow heads ended with the indian people. There is a fundamental difference and that speaker basically couldn't respond to 'who created the creator' because there is no logical response, so he used irrationality, misinterpreting an analogy to fit into a totally different thing (realism versus imaginary hypothesis).

The best way to explain this is to show you the hypothesis that the universe was created by a giant pink flamingo with green toenails, but under this speakers rules I don't have to explain where this pink flamingo came from, the explanation doesn't need an explanation. And then you are back to the needle in the haystack the size of our galaxy or billions of times larger. So choosing a fairytale explanation like god that doesn't need to have an explanation is worse than admitting you do not know yet, like I do, because for one it divides people and hinders growth and discovery. The pink flamingo explanation of the universe (he spoke, and the world became) is an explanation, but it is not a very sound (even though it began with the word of the flamingo) one, neither is the notion of a god (and the universe beginning with the word of god), because again it is a complex being that cannot always exist, and if it did there is no reason to believe that much simpler forms of the universe always existed.