What are /r/DebateReligion's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Whichever one has the best swag and least restrictions. Maybe pastafarianism, but to be honest, I'd probably just start my own. Something where the lord commands at least three days of leisure per week, mandates daily afternoon naps, and considers oral sex to be holy sacrament.

EDIT: There seemed to be some interest, and I didn't feel like doing anything constructive at work anyway, so here it is: the holy pamphlet of Awesomism. Feel free to state this as your official religion if you're ever forced to choose.

I'm truly sorry. You have been cheated of your right to an education by scoundrels.

Check this out: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

This should be useful also: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/v/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection

> It does offer a lot of medical benefits

The risks of not being circumcised, however, are not only rare, but avoidable with proper care of the penis.

I think a lot might be an exaggeration.

Good example. They think there is a war on Christmas because people want to say Happy Holidays.

Now imagine one of the leading Presidential candidates starts suggesting we not allow any Christians into this country because 0.02% of them are terrorists.

Then imagine that in one week:

• A church in California gets burned.
• Two women wearing crosses in Florida are attacked.
• A "patriot" group protests a church in Dallas.
• A domestic terrorist group vows to fight the spread of Christianity in the US.
• A woman throws hot coffee and yells and swears at Christians praying in a park in California.
• Another church in California is vandalized.
• White powder and a "Die, Christians, Die" note is sent to the headquarters of a Christian organization.
• People got together to burn Bibles outside the White House
• A man attacked a Christian worker in NYC swearing and throwing chairs
• A deli owner in Queens gets attacked by a guy yelling "I kill Muslims"
• A church in New Jersey gets hate mail
• Animal parts are thrown into a church in Philadelphia
• A restaurant in North Dakota gets lit aflame because its owners are from a Christian nation

Swap church/Christian/bible with mosque/Muslim/quran and those are <em>real stories from the past week alone.</em>

I sort of get the sense that even more Christians would become convinced there was a war on Christians if all of that shit happened to them.

Indeed I do.

In defense, it's a common misuse of the term, widely used. Even different dictionaries are not consistent on the term 'atheism'.

However, the in/correctness of the jargon used is not really the point of your question; I'm use the term anti-clericalism, but I understand what others mean if they use 'atheism' in that context.

===== EDIT: FWIW, I include a correct definition as I see it: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As that is a status, an ideology would be something else.

=====

And that really gets at the root of the issue here.

People don't believe that they can trust someone who isn't extrinsically motivated (via threat of hell, promise of heaven, reciprocating Jesus' sacrifice, etc.) to act with integrity.

Couple this with the human tendency to automatically trust members of our "in-group" (while distrusting members of the "out-group") and it's easy to see how religion might have originated out of a socio-economic necessity for trusting/relating to those we interact with.

But now it's gotten political. The masses refuse to believe that an atheist could act with integrity. Which begs the question: why does anyone act with integrity? The answer: because God is watching.

But extrinsically motivated integrity is no integrity at all.

edit: link

>There is no dispute about the facts of the case. Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins were organizing a wedding reception for themselves in Lakewood, Colo., and were referred by their wedding planner to the Masterpiece Cakeshop, known in particular for its wedding cakes.

When Mullins, along with Craig and his mother, arrived at the shop, bakery owner Jack Phillips greeted them politely, but, as soon as he realized who the wedding cake was for, Phillips instantly knew this was "not a cake that I can make." And he informed them that he did not make cakes for same-sex weddings.

source

In other words, the baker didn't wait to find out what design was requested; he just refused to sell a cake to this couple. Had they asked for the same cake he had just sold to someone else, he would not make it.

>one primary tenant?

• tenant - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tenant

• tenet - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tenet

.

[Edit] /u/ZeusHatesTrees may be the only person I've ever seen who has a good excuse for this. ;-)

> You're are literally the only person I've ever seen make that claim.

I sincerely doubt that.

>Since god is obviously not physically in front of me

This just supports my point that God's presence isn't merely physical. So if he's omnipresent, he's present in all ways. Not just physical presence.

>I doubt anything could be omnipresent as your definition describes.

If God can be absent, how do I know he's not absent right now? How do I know that his absence is somehow punishment if I can't confirm his presence?

>It certainly doesn't mesh with the most common definitions http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipresent

I see meshing. I don't see contradiction. If there's a place to be (even if that place is non-physical), God is there. God can't not be there.

> Deuteronomy 22:21

The entire premise behind "virginity" in the bible and Quran is that the man and woman have sex on a sheet and the woman is supposed to bleed from hymen rupture on the mix of bodily fluids and then the parents of the woman keeps the sheet as proof their daughter is a virgin.

And this practice is still in place today in some places despite our actually knowing how the mechanisms of human bodies and sex functions and this thinking is completely wrong.

They even sell kits the woman can buy to make sure the sheet looking properly deflowered.

This is how ridiculous quoting Deuteronomy 22 is.

Also Deuteronomy 22 clearly contradicts both the Jesus and the Catholic Church's stance on divorce. The man just has to pay 100 silver pieces and he's out. It also says a man can rape a woman as long as he married her and pays her dad a fine.

And here's the loophole for everyone not living in Israel, it says these rules only apply to Jews living in Israel.

> My entire point is that humans are divinely created and set apart from other species because we feel empathy.

A fluff piece. To start you off slowly. Non-Human Animals Show Empathy. What Happened To Ours?

I think we have differing views on what equality means.

From www.oxforddictionaries.com

>Equality; noun - The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

How can there be equality in the church when men and women have different rights and opportunities?

If a secular organisation claimed to promote equality of the genders and then only let men have positions of leadership, would you support their definition of equality?

> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/create

Do you not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus either?

Did you notice that "sire" was also on that list of words similar to "create"? So by your argument parents are creating their children, contradicting your claims.

>Bill Nye was more awkward, less fluent, more wandering, and less compelling than Ken Ham. This matters.

Well, as Bertrand Russell said:

>The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world

>the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

"The Triumph of Stupidity" in Mortals and Others

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stupidity

- And as you imply, this cocksure certainty is intensely attractive to most people.

They'd rather follow a dogmatic leader into a howling wilderness than work with a questioning one to figure out the actual truth.

Yes, but, as I already explained, no cosmological argument says that everything has a cause.

Norris Clarke wrote a whole paper on why atheists continually make this mistake, and have been doing so for hundreds of years: https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/h99Gw35R3H0VbLgIMRcaJtLVUWU6hTkngvbD1guH3bL

I (partially) edited out that part because i don't know. I tend to believe that Jesus Christ is the Vehicle for the message, not necessarily a real person (who may be or not), the same way Noah wasn't real but is a good vehicle for the teachings of judaism.

> so can something be true, and accurately believed, without being empirically evident?

Something can be true without being empirically evident (yet) but 'being true, and **accurately* believed, without being empirically evident'* is a contradiction.
Either it is Accurately proven with empirical evidence or not accurately proven (or proven at all).

Pleading to tradition (held believes) as proof of something is not a valid argument.

Edit:
Having fun with wollfram alpha, logical reasoning of Nº1.
P -&gt; E; ¬E; :· ¬P / P is proof and E is empirical evidence.

There are tremendous differences between different forms of Judaism. I will give you a super quick run down on the major three.

Orthodox - Torah is the word of God and the law is the law is the law.

Conservative - Torah is the word of God and the law applies within a social context.

Reform - Torah is the word of man/Moses and thus non-binding but feel free to do as much as you want. It provides the context of a social contract.

Now, there are different variations of each one. Within Orthodox, there is Modern, Charedi, Chasidish. Within Charedi, there are a half dozen strains (Misnagid, yeshivish, chardal etc...), within Chasidish several dozen strains to the point where attempting a list is meaningless. I actually follow none of those but a philosophy called "Torah Im Derech Eretz" or Torah and the way of the world (Considered a precursor to Modern, but very different in some important ways).

There are also strains within conservative and reform Judaism, but I am not as familiar with them, and to me they seem less distinguished, as various orthodox strains might seem less distinguished from somebody not orthodox.

Now, many orthodox Jews feel that we can take tremendous amounts of it non-literally. This is not the same as saying it is fallible. But Jews for over 1500 years have been taking it non-literally, understanding a lot within the context of the world (this is before there were various denominations, just everybody was orthodox of a form).

Edit: Made this document for r/Judaism.

>he must simply admit that unbaptised babies go to Hell period.

That's not true at all.

>In 2007 the commission, with the approval of Benedict, declared that the traditional view of limbo offered an “unduly restrictive view of salvation” and that there was hope that infants who died without being baptized would be saved.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/341221/limbo

Like many Christians, I believe in evolution. The Bible doesnt mention neanderthals because they weren't around when it was written. That said, it seems that neanderthals were able to see the need for some form of religious practice in their burial ceremonies discussion here. My thought is that God interacted with them in a way that made sense to them. I often surmise that this thought applies to animals and life in other galaxies.

Here's one very famous example: the virtue ethical demonstration given by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. Here's another very famous example: the deontological demonstration given by Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason.

The best case I can find for moral objectivity that there are some behaviors that work better than others. But even then they're subject to circumstance, meaning that morality must be constantly negotiated according to each scenario. I don't see how anything negotiable can be described as objective.

Sweetheart, if we didn't agree on definitions of words, we couldn't be having this lovely conversation, now could we?

You said that agnostics by definition "really do not participate in any debate on the existence of God". Here is dictionary definition of an agnostic, since you are incapable/unwilling to learn it. You'll notice it says nothing on the subject of participating in debates. Perhaps it is you who lives in your own little private world.

No, it absolutely can't be derived from a "natural standpoint." Are you familiar with the Bonobos? I have a hilarious (and probably NSFW) educational video on exactly what is natural in our closest genetic relatives. In a nutshell, life among the Bonobos is an anything-goes orifice-aganza. Nature has most definitely not determined that Tab A can only go into Slot B, and only for procreative purposes.

But here's another point on which the "natural" argument falls apart, anyway: Do you have any idea how many unnatural things you've done since waking up this morning? Let's count them:

1. You woke up on a bed made with unnatural materials.
2. You checked the time on a clock, something that doesn't appear in nature.
3. You probably brushed your teeth.
4. You probably showered.
5. You probably shaved.
6. You probably cooked your food.
7. You probably checked your email.

And so on, and so on. That could have been all within 20 minutes or so.

But you don't really mean "natural" and "unnatural" in this sense, of course. By "natural" you really mean "not icky." There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a homosexual population isn't completely natural, but there's plenty of evidence some straight people find it icky.

Apparently not (source, from /u/Les_Rong's comment):

> When Mullins, along with Craig and his mother, arrived at the shop, bakery owner Jack Phillips greeted them politely, but, as soon as he realized who the wedding cake was for, Phillips instantly knew this was "not a cake that I can make." And he informed them that he did not make cakes for same-sex weddings.

this video provides a thorough rebuttal, including a look at the scientific findings that craig quotes although the papers don't actually support the point he tries to prove with them

> Now, the only group even claiming to be a Caliphate is ISIS

Actually, there have been several caliphate movements throughout the post-Ottoman period. Boko Haram at one point claimed to be an independent caliphate before siding with ISIS. There are several competing groups in Indonesia, each claiming to be a caliphate. In the 1970s, the al-Ikhwan movement heralded the start of its caliphate with the attack on the grand mosque of Mecca (if al-Ikhwan were the new caliphate, then it made sense that they would want to control the Kaaba). Sufi caliphates are continuous and non-hereditary. The Ahmadiyya caliphate has been around since at least 1908 and is presently centred in London (conspiracy theorists...activate!). So ISIS's Sunni caliphate is really just one of many transient caliphate movements that we've seen (it's the second Sunni caliphate movement in my lifetime alone), so I don't have any expectations of this one surviving much longer than the others.

Anyway, I think the importance of the caliphate is questionable. As much as I am opposed to Salafism, there is even a Quietist Salafism movement which does not pursue any caliphate objectives.

This is a good read about irreducible complexity (from a peer reveiwed journal) https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/irreducible-incoherence

The bottom line is that irreducible complexity is completely made up and Behe lies to keep up his story. Time and time again we've seen stuff that Behe called irreducibly complex come about from successive steps. The argument really does sound convincing to the uninformed but it is utterly false. I don't give Behe the good graces of being an idiot like Comfort or Cameron, he's a liar.

So historians must be contemporaries of their subjects? Should I dismiss Stephen Oates' biography of Lincoln because Oates was born after Lincoln's death?

In that case I think the following count as new:

• Plantinga's EaaN and his argument that theism is warrented by its proper basicality
• Swinburne's Inductive Cosmological Argument
• William James' The Will to Believe (1896 is decidedly less than a millennium ago)
• Goedel's Ontological Argument (which unlike Plantinga's bears little resemblance to Anselm)
• Pruss' argument in "The Actual and the Possible" that God is necessary to give a satisfactory metaphysics of possible worlds.
• Wittgenstein inspired arguments for fideism, c.f. D. Pritchard &quot;Wittgensteinian Quasi-Fideism&quot;.

Each plague targeted a specific Egyptian deity, the 10th plague was targeted at Pharaoh and his inability to protect his people.

You know it isn't real right? It's just a story to show how God is better than all 10 Egyptian gods together.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Plagues-For-Ten-Gods

> I do not actively believe in any gods

Consider: You are an atheist, and are arguing under incorrect assumptions of what a position of atheism means, as several other comments have already pointed out(and as the flair of /u/MafiaManDude in this thread and others on this sub does as well).

> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist

But seriously, folks, this is what they figure a typical Jewish guy of the time looked like based upon reconstruction from skulls. https://www.quora.com/Did-Jesus-look-like-the-guy-in-the-1973-film-Jesus-Christ-Superstar

Just because Italians painted him to look like an Italian from centuries later doesn't mean that that's how he looked.

> Seems out of all of you, those most reliant on scientific answers are the most aggressive towards my questioning.

This is because, as I already said, there are 3 answers:

• proven but perhaps limited scientific literature which you can look up anywhere but a religious sub.
• unproven religious replies
• "I don't know"

> you're acting like a bunch of paranoid jerks

This is a religious debate sub. You asked a question. I thought your question was interesting but I don't have enough information to answer you, so I didn't. Someone else replied from a scientific standpoint and instead of looking it up, you began to ask questions as if they're a PhD in this field.

> All I'm asking is for you to explain yourselves

Scientific explanation was given. If you need more information, here's a link to Wikipedia. If you don't want to go there, to go /r/AskScience.

EDIT

I'll humor you and follow the conversation between you and /u/YossarianWWII. In their last reply, you kept on asking where cells come from. Are you not aware where cells come from? Did you skip discussions about the sperm and the egg meeting and dividing? Are you not clear about this? We've had so many trolls on this sub that it tends to make me a bit jaded when someone asks where cells came from. Clearly other cells. The typical troll will continue this for a dozen more replies, having someone else go through evolution, DNA, RNA, etc with them until we get to abiogenesis. Then the troll will say "AHA! You don't know!", which again goes back to the 3 points I made: scientific views, gods, or "I don't know".

So why don't you skip to the point because you can't possibly be honest when you ask where cells come from and don't pussyfoot around.

A slippery slope becomes fallacious when someone claims that one event will inevitably lead to another, undesirable future event, while there is no necessity that the future event will happen as result of the earlier event.

A good example that others have already mentioned here is the common claim that gay marriage will lead to the introduction of people marrying animals, children, groups etc. The hypothetical introduction of such marriages would have to be judged on their own merits. Proponents of bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy would first need to convince the greater society that there is a need for them, before these are even considered.

The Netherlands have had civil unions since the late 90s and full same-sex marriage since 2001, but so far there are no plans to extend marriage further. How long is a slippery slope supposed to last?

>Are you just going around spreading this lie in every thread you can find?

I will interpret your rudeness as a request for explanation.

This is a common interpretation of Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV)

You will notice the last sentence segment refers to "their blood hall be upon them". This is also interpreted in some bibles as "their bloodguilt is on themselves" because it is a reference to the legal and moral guilt and remorse of killing another human.

So, the bible reference to "their blood / bloodguilt shall be upon them" can be expressed as "they can be killed without legal or moral consequence to the killer".

And the academically respected definition of remorse is: Deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed.

However I just refer to the bloodguilt reference in Leviticus 20:13 as "remorseless" because the killer is not "required" to feel any guilt, one way or the other. I refer to the act of killing an innocent person as murder because I am not a bronze-age savage and I consider executing an innocent person for any reason, even for an angry blood god, to be murder.

You can read more about bloodguilt here.

I'm always happy to explain Christianity to a Christian.

I prepared this denomination document a while back. Chasidim base their beliefs around a more kabbalistic approach that the book, the Zohar emphasizes. However, the founder got excommunicated for espousing a panentheist God.

Everyone interested in the historical claims of the OT should look at this 2 hour Nova special covering the topic. It's the most thorough look at the subject I've found in a very presentable format. It's very unbiased as well.

There are a number of studies on this as well (meditation specifically).

What the hell is a natural fact?

"Even" is just a name we give to certain numbers. Are you looking for a scientific explanation for why we labeled numbers that can be written as the product of an integer and 2 with the word "even"? Here's the etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=even&amp;searchmode=none

It's a social construct more than a religious one. Sikhism rejects caste, but suffers from it as well.

The same applies to various degrees to religions like Jainism as well.

Note that rural and urban India differ greatly in terms of caste based issues. Urban India has levellers such as public transport which force people of different backgrounds to mingle together. Check out Mumbai's local trains for example.

> yes, this is correct

No it isn't.

A shoe isn't an atheist. It isn't a theist either.

It isn't an "-ist" of any kind. The suffix denotes &quot;a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.

A shoe isn't a person.

>Please don't run away because I am sincerely interested in your justification for bigotry.

Sure.

This is the Oxford Dictionaries (academically respected) definition of atheism:

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (source)

Did you notice how Mr Dawkin's personal opinions don't define atheist ideology?

Do you understand how judging all atheists based on the comments of Richard Dawkins is ludicrous and ad hominem?

If you don't understand this, then I am happy to try to explain it again, because, as a watchmod, I think it crucial that you comprehend this.

Please let me know if you understand that not all atheists are bigots?

Whenever the experts adopt them, then it's okay to be used in technical definitions.

Today, if you go to present at a medical conference and talk about boo-boos instead of trauma and make it clear you don't know that "germs" can mean more than just bacteria, you will get laughed off stage.

Online, there is no stage to get laughed off of, and so people will typically double down and do something preposterous like show that a thesaurus claims that "germ" and "bacterium" are synonyms, as if that defends their 5th grader terminology.

This guy on /r/philosophy is just digging himself deeper every time he posts, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/4yspsv/pascals_wager/d6t303g

Free will doesn't exist. How does no one know about causal determinism?

>If you're programmed to accept an idea, you don't have any objective way of telling whether it's true

I don't think it's that black and white. Consider System 1 vs System 2 thinking, in the book Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Our intuition can predispose us to certain types of thinking, and we can still be capable to rationally examining these beliefs. Education on our susceptibility to cognitive biases, and education on statistical thinking, can improve our ability to compensate for the weaknesses in our intuition and force our minds to shift to more rigorous decision making.

On a broader level, evolution predisposes us to racism and tribalism. But our capacity for abstract thought and language enables us to improve, to present and entertain arguments and shift beyond a merely instinct-driven existence. Which is why humans are capable of moral improvement, yet chimps and dolphins remain the same. We have culture and philosophy and the capacity for moral progress.

>once you accept that one or more ideas were implanted in you, it's not clear to me how you would tell which subsequent ideas you arrived at based on evidence and which ideas you are programmed to accept

Critical thinking, examine your beliefs and the arguments by which you can support your beliefs. That's the entire purpose of Socratic dialectic, making people explicate arguments so they are forced to more closely examine what they believe and why. We aren't "programmed" in a fatalistic, deterministic sense, rather we have propensities and biases. We still have the capacity for improvement, the capacity to change our minds. As you must recognize at some level, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to persuade anyone of anything.

> Please show me an objective basis for morality

"Here's one very famous example: the virtue ethical demonstration given by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. Here's another very famous example: the deontological demonstration given by Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason."

How dare you say this about Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy

The insight provided by our Prophet Jack is undoubtedly divine in origin.

Religion is whatever anyone wants it to be. (Jumping Jacks Idea)

Merriam-Webster's first and seconds definitions come the closest to what we're talking about. If you do jumping jacks on Friday's but when you want to, then that's not really much of a religion; it's just a thing.

Who's ignoring it?

I get it, you're progressive and reject these beliefs. My point was and still is that these things exist in the Bible: why not do it. I haven't insulted you, I'm pointing out the things wrong with your belief system. Instead of getting offended like you do, why don't you counter my arguments and provide valid criticism of my beliefs?

By what, trolling..? ...you're the enemy.

I'm sorry, what? Did you just compare me with Fred Phelps?? My main point is that there are awful, awful things in religion. I do not hate the people practicing these faiths; in fact, my point kinda revolves around the fact that they can be decent people. Why are you accusing me of being things I'm not?

You're being every bit as "bitter and sarcastic" as the atheists who you so claim to be evil. I haven't called you a troll, and I haven't accused you of extremism. Not to be rude, but the way you're approaching this makes you seem like a dick.

In that case, I'm going straight to Awesomism. If you're going to invent a deity and choose an arbitrary ruleset, it might as well be an awesome one.

>That's a personal opinion, not Canonical.

It is Christian dogma that Jesus was fully God and fully man. And the canon of scripture says he was sinless throughout his life.

>A programmer has the ability to do anything to the gaming world that he programmed.. But when he's playing as one of the characters, the character can't do that.

Jesus was an avatar of God.

>A person (or an agent) can't be moral. Only actions and decisions can be moral.

"Usage

An immoral person commits acts that violate society’s moral norms."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/immoral

>By following what he said (not what the church says).

The church established the canon.

>He never did that.

in the sense that it is impossible for God/Jesus to sin...the message is "see how easy it is to do what I want you to". Jesus could not struggle against his own sinful nature because, unlike the rest of us, he did not have a sinful nature.

I've had dealings with Hare Krishna folks from time to time,

and they strike me as extremely cheerful and extremely nice,

but seriously out of touch with reality.

.

They're basically the poster group for George Bernard Shaw's quip

>The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Androcles_and_the_Lion_.281913.29

In this case, I'll have to disagree with you. ( https://web.archive.org/web/20070223090720/http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156 ). Slavery in 18th-12th century BCE China was quite similar to slavery outlined in the Old Testament.

The first one is a stretch, there were no state of heaven or earth (that could have been stitched) when the universe expanded. Anyway, the story of how the earth was separated from the sky is/was pretty common at the time in judaism and some ancient mythologies.

As for the water bit, it was postulated long before the quran even came, by a greek philosopher named Thales. It was also mentioned in christian mythology (second paragraph) before islam came in.

>Got any sources for that

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20364651

Details the SAD disorder. This makes sense since Iceland is a tundra climate. Other places that would and have shown this are Alaska, northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, and more. Ireland is very wet and rainy but the climate isn't a polar climate, and their winters are relatively mild due to the North Atlantic Current.

http://icelandmag.is/article/almost-one-ten-icelanders-suffer-depression-fourth-highest-rate-europe

Another article that specifically mentions that one of the major suspected causes is the climate. Also note that Czech Republic has one of the lowest rates of depression in Europe as a whole, and the Czech Republic also has the highest atheist percentage of its population in the world (you can look that up on Wikipedia). Finland, Norway and Denmark are also very secular societies without extremely high depression rates.

Would there be a data basis for the censorship claims? Adding: How is a user of the website even able to censor another one? As far as I can tell, there's another instance involved before a comment gets removed. Neutral oversight.

> So why can't atheists handle critical reflections of atheism?

Can you elaborate on why you put all atheists in one box and claim that they are unable to perform [x]? I feel like a more precise description of the target group you had in mind would help communicating the issue of yours.

The goal: Avoiding across-the-board accusations, adding a data and definition basis and allowing a quantification.

Then you should be absolutely freaking out about now, because they can dictate public policy and the halt the construction of major public facilities and infrastructure.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hulduf%C3%B3lk#/Road_construction_stopped

I think the answer is contained within your question. We basically have the results of a controlled experiment.

Method 1 – pray without belief = bitter experience.

Method 2 – pray with assumption someone is listening – sweeeeet, makes me want to do it again, inspires religious emotions which draw me closer to God.

How does your intellect then decide that is not experimental confirmation of the benefits of prayer? How is that not extremely suggestive that if God does exist, he reciprocates with you, he wants to you continue?

That is evidence under any definition of the word evidence. Maybe drop your confidence in your epistemology and pursue the sweetness. Stop putting all your faith in your intellect and take a leap of faith and see what happens. What have you got to lose?

You could check out William Jame's article, The Will to Believe which will give you some intellectual and rational justification for this - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm

> The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition.

Might want to contact the person who runs that website

>a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

>Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

While you're at it you might want to talk to them about the no true scotsman fallacy.

You're starting to get it. You walked right past the real point.

I would suggest a book to you that you may find interesting.

Since you seem to like to compare religions for insight, this shows a method on how to do so.

>This unknown can be acknowledged as a god.

I see no reason to call the unknown "god" other than to cause a great deal of unnecessary baggage to be tied to it. I keep making this same damn argument (substitute "the universe" for "the unknown" and my post's good to go).

>Also, I don't know how to bake a cake.

http://allrecipes.com/recipes/desserts/cakes/

Please do not ever put 2 pounds of flour into any baked good.

I just took a course on Buddhism and Psychology from Coursera (see: https://www.coursera.org/learn/science-of-meditation) and wrote a paper on the doctrine of not self as well as a paper on the relationship between Cognitive science or modern psychology and Buddhist doctrine. Many Buddhist ideas about the mind, meditation, and the nature of the self are supported by Modern Psychological research, and the relationship looks to be a fruitful one moving forward. This is not to say there isn't any metaphysical baggage associated with Buddhism that wouldn't be supported by Science, but the intersection is still an extremely interesting area.

The professor Robert Wright also wrote a book called The Evolution of God some in r/debatereligion might be interested in.

If you look for the Vanilla Orthodox Jews, they represent me well. Not Charedi, not Chasids, but Vanilla Orthodox.

Edit: Document to clarify

I can definitely identify with what you are expressing, I've been there. I don't mean that to be condescending. I'm just trying to give you a glimpse of my perspective and where I'm coming from.

I can tell you that I had "a personal relationship with Christ" and similar type experiences. I felt "a connection" through prayer and it was very important to me. The first thing I did when I really faced myself and where I was with my religious investigations, looking in the mirror type experience, and said "I'm an atheist, I do not believe in God nor Jesus", the first thing I did was to put myself into the prayer state of mind. I was confident in my conclusions but still recognizing that we can never really know anything with 100% absolute certainty (brain in a vat/matrix type arguments) so I had a teeny tiny little fear that if I wouldn't be able to produce the same experiences as before, it would mean that they were "real" and that God had cut me off. The experience is still there if I put myself in the mindset. I was being self delusional or unknowingly using meditation, pick your term. I'll admit that it was a significant relief.

I get the impression that you are an intelligent and good person. I don't feel right to try and ... anti-proselytize to you. I'll just give you some of the arguments I liked as a Christian. God gave us this magnificent brain, he gave us the ability to think, to think critically, to have a sense of humor, and all that good stuff that doesn't hurt anyone else and betters us. Why would he object to us using his gifts? Here is a long list of interesting and accessible things I found through my journey, if nothing else it will better prepare you to argue against atheists, as you'll have a much better idea of the arguments you face, rather than the strawmen usually erected by apologists.

I did this myself. I can honestly say that I'm was a holy spirit filled Christian. I'm now an atheist. The brain is a powerful but faulty marvelous device. You sound like you are not interested in a debate so I'll just leave this with you, I hope it helps you in your journey. I can tell you that I'm at least a much happier man.

Indoctrinate: Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

I would say yes if the beliefs that the child are indoctrinated with harms them in some way. This would include but not be limited to teaching them that they are broken and in need of forgiveness and that they will suffer if they don't accept the beliefs. I don't think it would be considered child abuse if it isn't harmful to the child.

Children should be taught how to think not unquestioningly what to think.

OP, your error is that you think prediction is the only definition of the word prophet.

You are incorrect.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophet

Definition of prophet

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: such as
a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible
b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah

2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet

3: one who foretells future events : predictor

4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group

5 Christian Science
a : a spiritual seer
b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth

Sorry.

Actually, I believe the current understanding is the evolutionary reason for humans having pleasurable sexual relations is to keep a joined social structure as would allow for the raising of offspring.

As a note, (nsfw; apes) our closest relative demonstrates this very well.

Once you consider that sexual pleasure is not just for reproduction, but is meant to keep a community or couple together for the purpose of child-rearing, you realize that homosexuality does not violate the teleology.

That said, I find the teleological argument ridiculous, and lacking a way to resolve conflict between opposing teleologies. It strikes me as falling under the naturalistic fallacy, or the is/ought fallacy.

You are incorrect about solipsism. We can know that we think, because this means thinking. In other words it is analytic knowledge, not synthetic. In the same way that I know I exist. Or the same way I can affirm without a doubt that something exists. Or even that a square has angles, or many other things.

>And the solipsist, well, he kinda fails the moment he tells you he's a solipsist.

I don't see why this would be the case.

>You're not saying anything special when you call yourself a skeptic. Everybody's a skeptic about something.

Although I do agree, it's not really worth much to just say "I am sceptic". It can be ambiguous, but here one would expect a sceptic to be a person that doubts any religious truth, but that will depend from case to case and context. (definition 1.1 here)

The scope of the scepticism is of course dependent on the individual. But two degrees of scepticism are still comparable in many cases. (E.g. If you are sceptical about witchcraft, but not about your religion, and I am sceptical about both, then I am clearly more sceptical than you. ) Many people regard scepticism as a good way to evaluate things rationally, and therefore when comparable, the claims of being more logical may be based on that and not completely unfounded... at least that is my guess.

The difference between atheists and dogmatic christians in IQ is less than the difference between people in the United States and South Korea.

The difference between liberal Christians and atheists is the difference between average IQ of Italy and the United States.

It's not my personal definition:

> Deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true

Note that key word: "deliberately". That implies that the deceiver is aware that the belief they're spreading is not true.

And, I'm not going to play your silly game of "let's use an obviously simplistic and emotive false dichotomy to force people to say things I agree with, and anyone who still agrees with the silly option I don't agree with after I've made sure to word it as antagonistically and rudely as possible deserves everything they get".

If you ever want to debate this like a mature adult, I'm happy to join in. In the meantime... can you read my flair? That should give you a good indication of where I stand on the issue of the truth of the matter.

Also, the whole question about "which is most likely to be factually true" is impossible to answer. Either something is factually true or it is not factually true (or its status regarding factuality is as yet unknown). Anything else, such as me trying to guess whether any given statement is likely to be factually true, is mere opinion.

Lennox (35:21) - "Because faith is based on evidence"

• faith: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/faith

Hi. I'm the guy who helped create this. I have absolutely zero evidence to prove my story. The original notebook that Boo wrote in is lost. It's probably in the basement of my parents' house with the rest of my college stuff, but who knows. IIRC, the forum was created using phpBB.

I deleted the boards because I was afraid someone was going to do something stupid and as the "leader" I'd be held legally responsible. (Think Waco) Besides, looking for work, I didn't want my name attached to a new cult for potential employers to find.

That's pretty much it. Take it or leave it. My original point still remains.

> implying that he must have performed the most horrible of acts among them

Is that the only possible reason?

>The androgynous language used by people like Ambrose to describe Jesus

A 4th century bishop used androgynous language and that's an indication of ritualized rape?

>The hyperdenigration of women in monastic writings

Not unusual in many religions of the time.

>and the the subsequent raising of the question of how monks vented their urges

A lot of them had sex with women. There are drawings and etchings from various points in church history depicting this.

>Pretending ad hominem has multiple uses and re-configuring your comment is clever. It is a waste of time, but a clever move.

Shouldn't scare quotes and the phrase "Mister Powers" be in there somewhere? Next you're going to threaten me with sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

Or you could just zip it and read this.

>...and try to hold me to your retarded endeavor...

But this has no excuse. People do not call things "retarded" anymore. Not even wanna-be supervillians.

Stephen Hawking didn't think it was a myth that there were definitive scientific theories that were later proven wrong. He thought that this history should caution us against overconfidence.

He said "As I shall describe, the prospects for finding such a theory seem to be much better now because we know so much more about the universe. But we must beware of overconfidence - we have had false dawns before! At the beginning of this century, for example, it was thought that everything could be explained in terms of the properties of continuous matter, such as elasticity and heat conduction. The discovery of atomic structure and the uncertainty principle put an emphatic end to that. Then again, in 1928, physicist and Nobel Prize winner Max Born told a group of visitors to Gottingen University, "Physics, as we know it, will be over in six months." His confidence was based on the recent discovery by Dirac of the equation that governed the electron. It was thought that a similar equation would govern the proton, which was the only other particle known at the time, and that would be the end of theoretical physics. However, the discovery of the neutron and of nuclear forces knocked that one on the head too. Having said this, I still believe there are grounds for cautious optimism that we may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature."

Source

I would love to have the faith to believe that the world was created in seven days... but I have thoughts... and that can really fuck up the faith thing, just ask any Catholic priest. -- Lewis Black

Not the OP but

>How did you come to that conclusion?

The dictionary definition of faith

>firm belief in something for which there is no proof

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

A similar word for that is delusional

>a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusional

I would say the only difference between faith and delusion is that it's culturally acceptable to talk about gods governing the universe (without any evidence) make the same claim about anything else (leperchauns, jews, flying reindeer, illumanti) and you'll be considered delusional.

Yeah I just read a great argument against it; that is "Language is a tool to communicate with other minds. By it's nature, language derives its meaning from how other people use it. So a "private language" (the only kind that can exist in solipsism) is by it's nature meaningless. Therefore, any argument made by someone who is imagining the entire rest of the universe is also meaningless, because it is necessarily made in a meaningless language."

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-arguments-against-solipsism

Matt 7.12 and Luke 6.31. Both have it. Confucious has the silver, not the golden rule. Big difference. Those who claim it predates Jesus ubiquitously need to cite some sources. Also, it would be helpful to read Atheist Tom Holland’s book “DominionDominion ” on the seismic effect of Xianity on classical morality

> What you said is basically God is good because god's essence is goodness, and god is identical to his essence.

No, that's not what I said. As I defined above, something is good in proportion to the degree to which it conforms to its essence. God is identical to his essence, so he is perfectly good. This is no different from defining inverse magnitude as the distance of a point to zero, and thence determining that zero has the greatest inverse magnitude by virtue of being the closest to itself. We know God is good by virtue of knowing what we mean by goodness, and knowing how this pans out for something which necessarily exemplifies what that definition captures.

> Why is it that virtuous and rational are the qualities that were decided best define a "good" human?

I paraphrased Aristotle, who gives arguments in the Nicomachean Ethics. It's not terribly important for my comment that we commit to this; it's only an illustrative example.

> Why isn't a plants helpfulness to the ecosystem it lives in the standard?

Well, presumably it's not that because the utility of a plant to the greater ecosystem isn't something that we identify as correlative with its flourishing as an individual. For example, trees are often most helpful to the ecosystem in death. But this is a measure of benefit to the ecosystem, then, not the tree itself.

> Whoops, I missed the double entendre.

It helps if you caught Fast and Furious on TV.

> To which "two" does this refer?

Aquinas' terminology and its equivocation in the responses to it here by eric and gooddamon.

> I'd be willing to bet that the primal ancestor of the word "good" meant something like "doesn't kill members of the tribe unnecessarily, shares food generously, etc." before it meant "what God is necessarily, whether or not that involves rape, slavery, and genocide."

No one is suggesting the latter meaning. What Aquinas says is that we call something good when it is desirable, in the sense of being an end. This is a straight-forward reiteration of the definition, standard at the time, found in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics i:1.

I certainly fit the pattern - but then, I've been reading a lot of books like Paranormality and Predictably Irrational which deal with the predictable and repeatable ways in which our personal experience fails us. There's a reason science relies on verifiable and repeatable data.

Of course, this also follows the inverse of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - that is, a fairly mundane claim can be backed up with only testimony, and I'll provisionally accept it. Testimony isn't automatically and completely discounted, but it's also no substitute for solid data.

> Do we need a physical body to respond freely to God's love?

Absolutely not. All we need is a reasoning mind. But the best way for man to come to God is through the happy travails of our lives here.

> How do you define "good"?

God is the summum bonum, the highest Good and it's ultimate standard. Good is, teleologically speaking, the end goal that is a complete end in itself and not a means (cf Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics)

Historical progress, or "Whig History" is a part of the "Enlightenment" tradition Pinker is participating in. It's omission is a criticism I have of his work, not a straw man.

Tolstoy is very verbose, but Epilogue II of War and Peace goes through the argument. If you can be more specific I can try to be more precise in my link:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2600/2600-h/2600-h.htm#link2H_4_0370

Not the most reliable source but an interesting answer from Answers based on a theory I am aware of from other sources.

>According to the emerging "membrane" theory also known as "M" Theory, time might very well have existed. Membrane theory, or "brane" theory, is a development of string theory from its merging with Super Gravity theory placement of 11 dimensions rather then 10 dimensions (as stated by "string" theory). When these two theories began to coincide and then solve one anothers complex theroms; What emerged was "Membrane" theory.

>Our universe can be described roughly as a membrane (at least within the context of the 11 dimensions that are apparently necessary to support it). Membranes are not flat; they are rippled and bumpy. Universes come into existence when two already existing membranes collide. The collision would be that universe's "big bang". As some have correctly pointed out, the big bang theory deals with the expansion of the universe starting from a point in time when all matter and energy was gathered up in one place.

> The theory does not in and of itself explain how this package of energy came to be, what was going on before it took form, how long it existed before expanding or exactly what triggered the theorized expansion. We don't yet have the knowledge or technology to explore these ideas with any kind of depth. The big bang is a convenient event for us to use as our universal starting point, but we don't really know that time did not or could not exist prior to it.

>The idea of parallel universes, now being seriously considered by mainstream scientists, does offer possibilities that not only time, but many other universes may exist very close to our own, but inaccessibly (at present) locked into dimensional warps.

>nope. faith is "a strong belief or trust in something or someone". that definition allows mine which is belief in X without logical reason.

You can have still logical reasons for your faith. The fact that you don't agree with their logic is irrelevant. It's still a logical reason for them. Faith is belief that is not based on proof. It is not illogical belief, it is not invalid belief. It's simply belief not based on proof. It can have proof, but it doesn't need to.

You can have faith in many true things, based on valid logic. And you can have faith in many false things based on valid logic.

>again, you're wrong. read the official definition

There are many. For example that I posted from OFFICIAL source. Your official definition agree's with mine official definition.

> and you can definitely have faith in something by choice

You don't. You either are convinced or you not. You cannot choose to be convinced or not.

>no where in it does it include your little additional requirements "involuntary" or "bias".

Where in it the definition it includes additional requirements "voluntary" and "illogical"?

No. If you are confused about the denominations, I wrote this up for r/Judaism.

In general, I do not call myself an anti-zionist, or a pro-zionist. I just realize that Israel is very flawed, for political and religious reasons. Most Modern Orthodox Jews (a sub-sect of orthodoxy) see Israeli independence day as a Jewish holiday. I do not agree with that, as does most of orthodoxy Jewry. But, Israel clearly is good for the Jewish people as it provides a homeland for Jews everywhere.

They are not all the same. Some reject the divinity of the OT, some are pantheistic, some are atheistic.

Edit: If you do not take the time to read a three page document, you really do not care that much about denominations within Judaism and should not be here for you will not understand my approach versus the approach of others at all.

Thoughts from an interested layperson.

• John has the encounter with Nicodemus, in which Jesus uses a Greek pun that does not translate as a pun into Aramaic. Doesn’t this contraindicate a Jewish author?

• Paul does not appear to be aware of any gospels in circulation. If John existed at the time, would Paul not be citing it?

• Are there not “seams” within John indicating that it is compiled from multiple sources? John has Jesus traverse an impossible geography, there’s a handy map here

I think the personal conversion stories that are the most interesting are ones like yours - stories of great shifts in thinking and ideas. Have you watched the TED talk about being wrong?

Consider "An embryo is a human being" is merely your assertion and not supported by facts, i.e. an embryo can be in various stages of development, not only it does not process the consciousness of a human infant and a fully functioning nervous system, I'd say your idea alone is impeding science.

Furthermore, the stem cells gotten from the embryo are only 3-5 days old, at this stage it is a blastocyst and none of the organs or nervous or brain whatever related to human consciousness is formed. In addition, at this earler stage of embryoic development, half of the embryos are lost naturally. Once they are lost, they are out of the development cycle and can be used for research. If your god cares about embryos, which he doesn't, well not that he existed anyway, he would eliminate all the natural ways of losing the embryos.

Besides, the embryos cells gotten from the fertilization clinics are never going to be implant to a womb anyway. Not to mention adult and umbilical cells are being used as well.

I mean what ojections do you have on researching a clump of cells? The only argument you are raising is one from ignorance and clear false equivocation. Clearly, you have no idea about embryonic development and how stem cell research is conducted.

Nova has an awesome 2 hour special on the history/archeology of the OT.

It's on hulu here.

One of the best documentaries i've seen. Everyone should check it out.

They'd be translating from Latin rather than Greek. Though, both languages have an extensive vocabulary for talking about different senses in which things can be said to exist, more extensive than modern English for example, so I'm not sure what Simultanagnosia has in mind here. The Greek has ontos as you say, but also ousia and hypostasis, and more technical terms like energeia, entelecheia, and physis; all distinct from theos.

I never claimed you did say anything about god, however I did comment on what I suspect is your motivation to redefine the meaning of words.

And, for your info, the academically respected definition of omniscient is: Knowing everything.

The definition makes so claims that knowing tomorrow's lottery numbers isn't knowledge.

So simply, your claims are dismissed.

Your claims are doubly-dismissed because, even if someone was constrained to only know everything about the universe at a specific moment, they would then be able to make perfect predictions.

Did you have anything else to contribute?

I am not sure, but if he is clear on his definition, and did not pose the question the way you did, but clearly stated it as "how it is possible from something to come from nothing. ie. non-existence?" (found online so I hope it is accurate) - than how is that equivocation? You might not like the formulation of the question, but that does not make it equivocation.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php

Also, I think your use of nothing might be equivocation, because in your example you use nothing (no things) as "no(set of this list of particular things)". However inclusive that list might be it is not necessarily synonymous with nothing (you leave god out for example). If we are going to be specific, the definition of Thing includes "An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence." which would prevent god from special exemption from the definition of 'no things'. (or if you rather, the definition of thing also includes - Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/things

>Archaeologists have yet to find the ruins of Troy.

not true actually

but you can stop trying to explain the spider-man fallacy to this guy.

> ad hominem

An ad hominem would be if I said that what you said was false because you are an idiot; what I did is called mockery - whereby I mocked someone who claimed to be a lawyer^1 despite apparently not believing that the state has the right to define correct and incorrect action, which is exactly what laws are.

^1 No, no; I'm sure that, unlike everyone else on the internet who claims to be a lawyer, you actually are. You sound like one to me, but then I'm an astronaut^2 so what would I know?

^2 For the benefit of the medically stupid: no, I am not actually an astronaut. I'm a Nigerian prince.

>How does this further your point?

My point was that words have evolved over time. Gnosis went from the original secret knowledge of the divine to OP's knowledge of a specific claim to Huxley's coining of the word agnostic to it's modern interpretation of lacking knowledge.

>That's not what the suffix means,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ology

>An ology or -logy, is a scientific discipline.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ology

> a branch of knowledge : science

>It means "the logos of" which means a rational account.

You seem to be confusing etymology with definition.

>because stealing, killing, and rape is widely occurring in the ape society

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed that others apes were as morally developed as modern humans, and I certainly didn't claim that other apes don't steal, kill, and rape.

Here's a decent review article describing the evolution of morality by comparing modern humans with some of our ape relatives. Many more such papers can be found with a simple Google search.

> what is different is after 120,000 yrs humans decided out of the blue to codify the punishments, yup, you're right, humans didn't need religion, they just made it up to control the masses, but now we don't need it since all the masses are enlightened, good behaving, well-mannered, non-violent persons. .......

I'm having trouble parsing this argument. Could you please restate it, perhaps without the sarcasm, so I have a better shot of understanding it?

What's the significance of "120,000 years"?

I never claimed humans "made up religion to control the masses", nor did I claim that humans in general are "enlightened, good behaving, well-mannered, non-violent persons.

I will claim, however, that the countries which rank highest in terms of happiness and safety are quite consistently less religious than average, which leads me to believe that religion does not promote "well-mannered, non-violent persons".

> It only takes a modest understanding of quantum field theory to know that it doesn't make sense to claim that vacuum fluctuations explain how the universe can come from "nothing."

Uh, that's in no way true. Do you have a "modest understand"? Quantum field fluctuations easily explain it. The whole point of the book is that "nothingness" is inherently unstable.

Moreso, if you're looking for "hard evidence" in cosmology, you're pretty much never going to get what you want. You can bring us back to the state of the universe at time=0 with anything /other/ than theoretical modeling.

> Another way to put it is that the vacuum is most certainly not nothing.

No, it is. A vacuum devoid of anything is, by pretty much any definition of the term, nothing.

> For one, different theories have different vacua with different properties.

Sure. Because of what's inside of them. In the case of an "ultimate vacuum" it contains, in a word, nothing.

> But I do warn you I haven't heard a physicist supporting Krauss's book as a scientific perspective.

Uh, here you go. Literally the second result on google.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

> At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum. When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible. The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? "We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially," say the researchers.