Hitler loved his mom, but respected his dad and his dad was an abusive fuck.

It is most certainly possible to "love" those who abuse you. Once those who convince you that you need them, and you blindly buy it, they can do terrible things to you and you will still think that is "love".

It is why women don't leave abusive relationships. The abuser convinces them that their abuse is a form of "tough love".

The mistake is that those who accept abuse confuse the abuse and demand for control as some sort of way of helping them correct their behavior. The truth is that the abuser is simply a selfish control freak with mental problems who has to dominate someone else to feel good about themselves.

The worst invention in human imagination was the first god ever claimed, whatever that was. It was born out of fear and ignorance, but quickly became a way to control others.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way with rational people.

We're skeptical of extraordinary claims, unless they have extraordinary evidence to corroborate the claim.

That's why we're difficult to mislead, and even more difficult to fool.

I'd love to hear a Cristian tell a Muslim, or a Jew. I'd love to listen in on the three of them going,

"No, I'm right!"...

"No, I am!!".....

"No, I am!!!!"...

"No, you're not. I am!!!!!!!"....

"No, you can't be 'cause I am!!!!!!!!"....

"No, I am, 'cause it says so right here in my book!!!!!!!!!!!"

"No, you're not, because it says you're wrong and I'm right, in my book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"No, both you're books are wrong, because my book knows best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Allah Allah Allah!!!!!!!!

Jesus Jesus Jesus!!!!

HaShem HaShem HaShem..... hack hack hack....!!!!!

It would be like listening to baboons.

Rational people don't articulate their convictions like baboons. They demonstrate through facts, empirical evidence and logic.

Adding emphasis only adds drama. It doesn't actually add any true veracity to the claim.

Quoting legend and folklore is second hand hearsay and bronze age propaganda.

We all learned that as little children when we played "Telephone".

It's only out of utter ignorance that one could make that statement.

Thoughts occur in the mind. Not in the heart. The heart is a muscle.

Robert Jarvik

Oh ya?

And my mama told me they're dumb!

In a mind like yours, I'm sure it does. Which is why you're not likely to actually ever develop anything useful, except your parroting skills.

So is the legend of the Tooth Fairy.

Are you going to debunk the existence of the Tooth Fairy?

You have little faith in man, due to your lack of knowledge of what we are currently capable of, and what is being developed behind closed doors.

You couldn't cope, if you were to know.

I doubt you even understand what the Large Hadron Collider is going to allow us to understand.

I doubt you even understand what computer software like FEA can model and simulate in virtual reality.

Guys like me use the current state of the art technology. But we're also given insight into the next wave of technology, as beta testers of those technologies.

As we continue to develop computers and algorithms that can extrapolate exponentially faster, it will be like we discovered a new dimension.

You keep your nose in that book of yours. That way, you'll remain ignorant to what we're doing.

If there's a god, we'd find him.

I didn't state that Sir Fred Hoyle did. Here is a brief list of fine tuning parameters for the universe. There are many more. 

1. strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above ratio of
7. number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Hell no I don't have faith in man. Do you? Yeah I know what were capable of. Killing each other, that's what man is capable of. We can send a man to the moon and do great things with knowledge and technology but we still can't find a way to love each other. Like the scriptures say, who can understand the human heart? The heart is the seat of thought and emotion. I'm sure you've heard the expression "how thoughtful of you."

     Your avatar can be summed up nicely by the Christian theological term Ex nihilo which denotes essentially the same thing.  ( except Christian theology interjects a mystical process )  ..still  Christians maintain that God created the cosmos from nothing.

God's image meaning love! Is there anything wrong with love jc?

Which God are you describing? You only have an assertion that God is love (1 John 4: that contradicts the other Biblical descriptions of God being a kill crazy freak.

There's the God of the OT and Revelation and the God that Paul and his converts tried to make Jesus into.

Which God are you talking about?

Nothing wrong with love but God didn't create it.

No it's not an assertion it's truth. How many times are you going to use the contradiction excuse?

I have no problem with love, I have a problem with naked assertions of comic book super heros falsely believed to be real.

"love" is a label humans IN REALITY put on a mundane normal NON MAGICAL human emotion we evolved to express. Just like running is not a thing, but a manifestation of the process of our legs moving faster.

"love" is a product of our evolution and existence. Like any other human emotion, there is no magical super hero needed to explain life.

You know what I am going to answer. but if you insist.

EVOLUTION. I will pick a natural answer over any old bullshit myth and twice on Sunday. I have no need for old kaleidoscope myth when modern science has given us REAL telescopes. What you have is mental masturbation in the form of imagination. What our modern age has are the tools that allow you to type on a computer and go to the doctor when you get sick.

You don't pray to Thor or Isis or Vishnu. Try understanding why you reject other people's god/s and maybe you'll understand why I reject yours as well. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god than you do.

Our galaxy alone is 100,000 light years across. The surface of the biggest sun found so far, if put in the place of our own sun, would extend PAST SATURN. And the force that a black hole exerts is strong enough that even light cannot escape it.

Old myths and even modern superstitions like Ouija Boards and Big Foot, have absolutely NOTHING on real nature. They are mere concoctions of the intellectually lazy because a placebo is easier to swallow than kicking the tires to insure quality of data.

A history of claims does not constitute evidence, otherwise the sun would be a god because the Egyptians claimed it for 3,000 years long before your zombie god ever got invented.

All you are proving to me is the downside of human evolution. P.T. Barnum said it best, "There's a sucker born every minute".

Evolution does not seek perfection which is why our species has the flaw of making shit up. We always have and you are not a different species. You are not special and neither am I. We are one of 7 billion. Those before us have died, and those after us will die, and eventually our entire species WILL go extinct. After that neither you or I or anyone famous, or the god/s claimed in the past or the ones invented in the future, will exist after our extinction.

Being frightened by this is silly. What would frighten you so much if this was all there was? It would be like being frightened by a leaf dying after falling off a tree.

I am sorry you feel the need to cling to old stories. I find our finite nature, both it's good and bad, far more interesting than the rantings of tribal goat herders.

that's fine.  There's a lot to follow now.

naw, it's more like deducing the reasoning behind why the other gods couldn't be.

There's a faith factor and an evidence factor.  God is a being.  Just like you might know your brother enough to have faith that in a particular situation, he'd make a particular choice (assuming you had a brother... i don't know)  it's the same with God.  There must be some evidences and reasoning to believe beyond just faith... or just as Brian wants to believe, we would have to  believe in unicorns too.  

I stopped saluting with both hands after getting an elbow in the eye.  

There are many factors that elude to the fact that they understood it'd be a bad situation if they ate the fruit.  the story says you surely shall die.  We can make all the assumptions we want as to what they understood or didn't understand, but it's logical to conclude that if they understood death (something they originally weren't supposed to experience) they understood other evils.  Remember the punishment was from disobeying God.. the consequences of the action was death.