“God’s Not Dead 2”
Posted: 24 August 2016 07:00 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14

I just saw an advertisement for this movie, and I went and checked out its Wikipedia page.  Read the synopsis and tell me… have you ever seen such a pile of Fantasy?  A principal, an entire school board, a county prosecutor, and a judge, All Atheists?  And I just started laughing when I read the part where the school board took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, to “prove once and for all that God was dead!”  LOL! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God’s_Not_Dead_2

That’s weird.  The link doesn’t seem to work any more.  You’ll just have to Google it I guess.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2016 01:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

I’ve watched these movies because people I know watch them. There’s nothing in that movie that a phone call couldn’t have handled. I think the FFRF should release a 2 minute YouTube, where they show the kid texting about the teacher, then show the principal getting the text, but instead of calling the teacher in, he calls Dan Barker. Dan says, “Nope, not a problem, she can say Jesus was a significant historical figure”. The End.

The final scene almost redeemed the movie. If you suspend belief, and don’t treat the scene like reality, the public defender pretending to turn on his own client and says, “let’s convict her”, but points out that would take anyone’s right to talk about religion in any way. He’s right of course, and it’s exactly why the law works the way it currently does. But the movie, and all the publicity they put out about it, tries to say this conversation hasn’t happened and that the law doesn’t work that way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2016 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  523
Joined  2011-09-13

A god, if it existed would have to exist beyond the realm of all the laws of physics, thus it no way could it had ever been alive as we understand life.  Hey, but it is nice little fantasy for those who enjoy fantasy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2016 09:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21
deros - 25 August 2016 07:42 AM

A god, if it existed would have to exist beyond the realm of all the laws of physics, thus it no way could it had ever been alive as we understand life.  Hey, but it is nice little fantasy for those who enjoy fantasy.

Sure. Both movies don’t attempt to demonstrate a living being. They make a couple stabs at showing God has an effect on the physical universe, like a car that won’t start and woman who’s cancer is cured. Otherwise, it’s an obvious response to Nietzsche. Otherwise, the thing that is “not dead”, is peoples’ right to claim a relationship with God. In America, that’s obviously not dead, so, not much of a point to make.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2016 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7854
Joined  2009-02-26

This may be of interest.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not ‘a magician with a magic wand’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2016 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20

Doesn’t something have to be shown to exist before it can be considered dead? Just askin’

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2016 08:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7854
Joined  2009-02-26
LoisL - 27 August 2016 07:56 PM

Doesn’t something have to be shown to exist before it can be considered dead? Just askin’

The odd thing is that science does not have a word for the *condition* which existed before the BB. We just don’t know.

So, by removing the supernatural, emotional, and magical properties of God, one could make an argument that God was the creative causality.
Of course, as all the original assumptions of an intentional and motivated being are removed, we end up with the term “Creative Force before the beginning of the universe”  as Pope Francis hinted at and which would not require worship or all the bells and whistles that come with religion.

As we all can agree that some condition must have existed before the BB, we can now discuss the concept of a creative force on scientific terms.  A giant step forward, IMO.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2016 06:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
Write4U - 27 August 2016 08:22 PM
LoisL - 27 August 2016 07:56 PM

Doesn’t something have to be shown to exist before it can be considered dead? Just askin’

The odd thing is that science does not have a word for the *condition* which existed before the BB. We just don’t know.

So, by removing the supernatural, emotional, and magical properties of God, one could make an argument that God was the creative causality.
Of course, as all the original assumptions of an intentional and motivated being are removed, we end up with the term “Creative Force before the beginning of the universe”  as Pope Francis hinted at and which would not require worship or all the bells and whistles that come with religion.

As we all can agree that some condition must have existed before the BB, we can now discuss the concept of a creative force on scientific terms.  A giant step forward, IMO.

“A creative force” is too abstract. We’re still faced with the question of what created the creative force.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2016 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7854
Joined  2009-02-26
LoisL - 28 August 2016 06:31 AM
Write4U - 27 August 2016 08:22 PM
LoisL - 27 August 2016 07:56 PM

Doesn’t something have to be shown to exist before it can be considered dead? Just askin’

The odd thing is that science does not have a word for the *condition* which existed before the BB. We just don’t know.

So, by removing the supernatural, emotional, and magical properties of God, one could make an argument that God was the creative causality.
Of course, as all the original assumptions of an intentional and motivated being are removed, we end up with the term “Creative Force before the beginning of the universe”  as Pope Francis hinted at and which would not require worship or all the bells and whistles that come with religion.

As we all can agree that some condition must have existed before the BB, we can now discuss the concept of a creative force on scientific terms.  A giant step forward, IMO.

“A creative force” is too abstract. We’re still faced with the question of what created the creative force.

IMO, not really, you take away *intelligence* and *intent*, and replace it with a few inherently mathematical properties and functions, the functional essence of all things including the BB and geometry of spacetime.  The single *common denominator* of all things which results in dynamic functions through the exchange of values and by mathematical processes..

IMO, all terms used in physics and cosmology are of a mathematical nature, whereas Pope Francis just declared that “God is not a magician with a magic wand”, suggesting that evolution of the condition which produced the BB was a by a mathematical process, rather than by Divine intervention. It narrows the divide considerably, without robbing people of the concept of God, an unknown creative force, to be respected. 

I see the creation of the universe as a *mathematical probability in a permittive condition*, it’s mathematical functions to be respected, as we now are beginning to experience on earth. The concept can be observed *everywhere we look*

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2016 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21
LoisL - 28 August 2016 06:31 AM

“A creative force” is too abstract. We’re still faced with the question of what created the creative force.

I think you have a point here. Most people want some kind of explanation, not necessarily something proven, just something. I’ve been replacing “creation” or “universe” with “this known physical universe”, because we don’t know anything outside of that. At least, it gets theoretical once you start pondering outside that definition.

So in that sense, it’s the same question we’ve always had. OTOH, we’ve filled in a lot space and time from the original question of how did our little tribe get here. So questions like “who’s behind the Big Bang” start to look silly. What possible reason would you have for asking “who”? Same for “what created the first creation we can explain”? The answer is, by definition, “we don’t know” because you just asked about the unexplained. Instead of an answer, you have another question, “how do we figure that out”? Any terms used to describe the unexplained are mere place holders.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2016 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7854
Joined  2009-02-26
Lausten - 30 August 2016 10:35 AM
LoisL - 28 August 2016 06:31 AM

“A creative force” is too abstract. We’re still faced with the question of what created the creative force.

I think you have a point here. Most people want some kind of explanation, not necessarily something proven, just something. I’ve been replacing “creation” or “universe” with “this known physical universe”, because we don’t know anything outside of that. At least, it gets theoretical once you start pondering outside that definition.

So in that sense, it’s the same question we’ve always had. OTOH, we’ve filled in a lot space and time from the original question of how did our little tribe get here. So questions like “who’s behind the Big Bang” start to look silly. What possible reason would you have for asking “who”? Same for “what created the first creation we can explain”? The answer is, by definition, “we don’t know” because you just asked about the unexplained. Instead of an answer, you have another question, “how do we figure that out”? Any terms used to describe the unexplained are mere place holders.

I agree the question remains, but by whittling down what it is not, we can concentrate on a logical answer, which IMO, lies in a mathematical equation, not in an emotional intent from a living supernatural entity, such as “a magician with a magic wand” or an “intelligent designer”.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile