Fred Phelps was most likely, insane. I don't see any reason to take his actions to heart.

I hope he finds the peace in death, which he lacked in life.

Quantum fluctuations require space to be preexisting. The Big Bang was the beginning of Space-Time and therefore could not have been caused by quantum fluctuations by any current theory.

I don't see anyone saying "If you don't understand something, you should assume God did it".

I've explained using logic and reasoning why God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

If you answered my question "no", you would have disproven your contention that "natural law" is based on human societal evolution.

To follow your argument to it's logical conclusion would have you agreeing with Hitler that all Jews needed to die, because every society on earth agreed.

So you took the easy way out and claimed I was playing the "Hitler card", when I was using Reductio ad absurdum to show the flaw in your theory.

I won't waste my time discussing topics with you anymore.

I just stepped back for a second. Sometimes I get so into my head, that I can't see what is in front of me.

Natural Law theory is based on religious beliefs and originates from the idea that God built laws into human nature. That's not debatable. You can read the theory on various philosophy websites. We can argue if that belief is valid, but I refuse to entertain any more discussion that Natural Law theory comes "from nature". I'm done with that. Don't waste your time or mine.

Exactly my point. You wrote a sentence, which was clearly meant to imply I was making a claim of special knowledge. When I called you on it, you twisted it around to claim that you weren't saying what you obviously were. You rendered your own sentence meaningless.

I always hope for the best in people. I thought you might actually be able to admit that Natural Law theory is a religious theory based on observations of human nature. I think leaving 1% doubt was very generous.

What if every society on earth had agreed with Hitler and all of the Jews on the face of the earth had been gassed? Would that have been morally right under natural law?

I wasn't going to reply to this in more depth, because I don't feel that it really deserves much attention. But I'm not able to sleep, so here we go.

You are moving the goal post. You originally asked "I kind of wonder how many religious people are reading this and thinking I am the anti-Christ. hahaha".

Some people might call you evil. Some people call me evil for not liking church music or thinking that the Beatles were overrated. But would someone call you the anti-Christ? Maybe someone who was mentally ill, but even that is a long shot. The anti-Christ has prophecies about him found in Revelation 13, they are very specific. You aren't the center of attention in the world, so you don't fit the profile.

So when I wrote "Somewhere between 0 and none.", I really think I was right on the money.

I think this deserves more attention, because it actually is egregious. By observing nature, we determined it was wrong to steal, right? To murder? To rape? All of those things are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors in nature. Sea Otter's in California will kidnap baby seals and rape them to death. Perfectly normal and acceptable. Do you actually believe it's lawful (under natural law) to rape another creature to death? No, I don't think you do. I think what the problem is that you got completely out of your depth, had no idea what you were talking about and just ran with it. I'm 99% certain that you will reply and try to defend your claim that Natural Law is based on observing nature. I honestly can't wait to see your response.

Call it a hunch.



I feel that you are either completely out of your depth or having a piss. The term "Natural Law" in philosophy refers to "'��Natural law theory'�� is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality". You seem to have latched onto the word "natural" and assume "mother nature". It's speaking to human nature, which was created by God according to those who espouse natural law. It's honestly very frustrating trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, when it's always like you just walked into the room mid conversation and think you know everything. You are wrong. Natural law isn't about nature. It's about the moral laws built into human nature.



Again with the sarcasm quotes. Okay, so if we have an ordered universe, with moral laws built into human nature...how did that happen if it wasn't by the actions of a "creator god"?



God. This was covered earlier in the discussion, so I won't cover it again.




In that sense, I know lots that "others do not know". You just rendered your sentence meaningless. I know more about the Thanksgiving of 1621 than I'd guess 90% of extant humans. Probably more. So what you posted was a meaningless statement of the obvious.



Oh, wait. Nope, you were obviously implying that I was claiming access to some hidden truth that nobody else had.

No, it logically follows that the universe was created by something, since we know it hasn't existed forever (at least not in it's current state). So yes, the universe was created by a "time-less, space-less, incredibly powerful entity". Could it have been a natural phenomenon? That's not out of the realm of possibility, but that leads to an infinite regress. What caused the cause. God would explain the existence of the universe and stand as a causation terminator, the original cause of everything.



Unfortunately, I'm not a physicist. But I feel certain that scientists might be able to answer those questions and many more, if only they could entertain the possibility.



What are the "tons of evidence" for a natural beginning of the universe?

I get the feeling that maybe you aren't understanding the scope of the question. You do understand that space/time/matter are all interrelated, right? How did those things, which compose everything that exists in the universe, come into existence? If you want to claim that there is "tons of evidence" that the origin was natural, you don't know what you are talking about. On that subject, there is no proof and no workable theory. There are hypothesises of a mother universe spawning baby universes and theories like that, but they have a problem...who created the mother universe? The best hypothesis from scientists has simply pushed the problem back in time, there is no answer forthcoming. If an archeologist finds a ruin, they try to determine who built it. They don't keep re-dating the building, each time saying it's older than the last dating and then claiming that the ruin wasn't built, it always existed.

What's stopping you? You admit you don't know why something exists rather than nothing.

For something to exist, rather than nothing, a time-less, space-less, incredibly powerful entity must exist. Now you can assume it was some sort of natural cause, which just begs more questions or you can assume it was God.

Natural Law comes from the belief in an ordered world based on laws. You can't have an ordered world without someone to do the ordering. You can't have laws without a lawmaker.



No see, I don't like words being put in my mouth. I said I know the truth of the first Thanksgiving from historical records. I didn't say nobody else knew the truth.

Discussing anything with you is like some other equally unpleasant scatological activity...

I know all that. I'm really not sure why you brought Thanksgiving into this...or maybe that was someone else. Whatever. It seems you think I have a Thanksgiving chip on my shoulder. I know that the first Thanksgiving holiday was celebrated by the Pilgrims in 1621. Prior to that, other people had arrived in the Americas and held a Thanksgiving service. But for the Pilgrims in 1621, it was a holiday and was celebrated for three days. They even proclaimed that they should celebrate that day every year.

What any of this has to do with God, I can't really fathom. It's almost as if you think the fact that the Pilgrims weren't the first to give thanks, that God must not exist.

All I know is that the first Thanksgiving wasn't used to give small pox blankets to Indians as that one feller said and whatever you think of it is surely equally as misguided and incorrect.

You believe something has existed forever and has created everything that exists, aside from itself. Sounds like a theist to me.

So you don't see an issue with the universe just existing. Somehow nothing evolved into something?

Have you ever heard of Leibniz? Famous mathematician, philosopher, theologian. He was actually the first person to invent Calculus. He asked a question: "Why is there something, rather than nothing."

Why do you think something exists, rather than nothing. You have pushed the beginning of the universe by trillions of years, but why did it begin in the first place? Making the universe older doesn't remove the need for the universe to have a creator.

What do you believe? And on what do you base it?

See, I think the problem is that you have some misinformed ideas about God. God is perfect, therefore God doesn't get bored.

You conceive of a strange god who needs to be entertained. I'm not talking about Zeus or Odin, but a perfect being which is complete in Himself.