An atheist professor & his student
algagaa
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
science has with God, The Almighty.
He asks one of his new Muslim students to stand and.....
Professor: You are a Muslim, aren't you, son?
Student : Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student : Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student : Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
didn't.
How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella
(Fellah - A peasant in an Arabic-speaking country, esp. in Egypt ). Is
God good?
Student :Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student : No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student : From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?
Student :Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student :Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student : No , sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that
matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
say your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student : No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat,
mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have
anything called cold. We can hit (-) 458 degrees below zero which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such
thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite
of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing
and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it
were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality.
You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God
and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something
finite,
something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a
thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much
less fully under stood either one. To view death as the opposite of
life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence
of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they
evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes,
of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor,
are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a
preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done
so.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With
all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH.
That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
Thom Madura
Thom Madura
You are wrong
1 - Anyone who has seen a birth of an animal has seen evolution work.
2 - There is concrete proof of the human brain - in several ways. In can
be viewed in X-ray - and other scans - as well as surgery - while a
person is alive. I need not take it on faith that a man has a brain. He
would not be alive without it.
3 - Your description of Cold and Darkness are incorrect as well. They
are words that are part of Language - and have meaning. And per their
meaning - there is indeed cold and there is indeed darkness.
However - You biggest error is your assumption of the infinite. Science
has told us that Energy (And as related - matter) can neither be CREATED
nor destroyed. Infinite does not equal a deity.
Please GO away
You don't belong here
Dave
What I find interesting about this is:
1. The original poster eliminated the standard urban legend end to
this tale: that the student was a young Albert Einstein.
2. The story is a combination of at least two standard urban legend
tales about "atheist professors."
I kept waiting to hear that it was all part of a secret project Bill
Gates is working on and if I forwarded it to 14 people, Microsoft
would send me a check for $241.00.
Toon
wrote:
>
Ah, I thought that was the opening of a joke.
BigNate
be .."walk into a bar".
George Johnson
news:a82f044a-f172-4b33...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
|
| An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
| science has with God, The Almighty.
[clipped]
| Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
| Professor's brain?
| (The class breaks out into laughter.)
| Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
| brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done
| so.
| So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
| demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With
| all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
| (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
| unfathomable.)
[strawman nitwit junk edited out]
Prof: Aside from your insulting foolishness student, you can fathom that
since I am a human being and therefore is a foregone conclusion that every
human being that is alive and cognitive utilizes a brain, I most certainly
possess a brain. Furthermore, since a number of scientific devices (which
require no superstition to operate correctly plus consistently) can indeed
not only prove that I possess a functional brain, without surgery, a number
of other proven sciences will prove that my head is neither empty or
non-functional. Even the usage of a simple scale can prove that my head is
neither hollow or lighter than that of my fellow man.
| Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH.
| That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
Prof: Remember this, RELIGION PROMISES ANSWERS, SCIENCE DELIVERS ANSWERS.
Science gives you information. Science gives you electrical power. Science
gives you computers. Science gives you chemisty. Science gives you the
ability to communicate instantly with any human being at any place on the
Earth or the Moon. Science gives you better agriculture. Science gives you
the ability to travel nearly effortlessly and inexpensively across the
entire world. Science gives you medicine and mathematics. Religion is
EMOTION. Science is LOGIC. Religion cannot exist without constant
emotional reinforcement. Faith is more akin to wishing and no religion in
particular (or at all) is required for empty effortless wishing.
Prof: Since you are here to merely entertain yourself and refuse to learn,
then you can be faithfully assured that you have failed the most basic
aspects of paying attention in this class. In fact, I implore you to pray
for a grade change for all the useless good that will gain you. I can also
assure you that you have not only failed at life as well as your religion,
but at thinking rationally. My class will require rational thinking, your
ability to memorize real facts, and hard work to pass. You can WISH your
life away uselessly, but the people that want to earn a real life of value
will be WORKING FOR RESULTS to improve our living.
John VanSickle
> algagaa wrote:
>> An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
>> science has with God, The Almighty.
>> He asks one of his new Muslim students to stand and.....
>> Professor: You are a Muslim, aren't you, son?
>> Student : Yes, sir.
>> Prof: So you believe in God?
>> Student : Absolutely, sir.
>> Prof: Is God good?
>> Student : Sure.
>> Prof: Is God all-powerful?
>> Student : Yes.
>> Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
>> him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
>> didn't.
>> How is this God good then? Hmm?
Me: Before I can give my answer, I need on more piece of information.
Professor: What is it?
Me: Do you claim to be omniscient?
Professor: No, of course not.
Me: By what logic, then, do you profess to know what an omniscient
being would or should do in any given circumstance? This is no ad
hominem attack against you; to prove that an omniscient God cannot
exist, you must offer an event which contradicts the existence of an
omniscient God. But to know whether an event meets this criterion, you
must necessarily be omniscient. It may be that by allowing your brother
to perish--which happens to all men anyway--God has prevented something
worse; unless you are omniscient, you cannot claim with certainty that
your brother's passing is worse than all other alternatives, or even
that is is worse than any of them.
>> Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella
>> (Fellah - A peasant in an Arabic-speaking country, esp. in Egypt ). Is
>> God good?
>> Student :Yes.
>> Prof: Is Satan good?
>> Student : No.
>> Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Me: Satan was made by God. But having been made, he chose an evil path.
(The rest of the professor's argument becomes moot.)
>> Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
>> the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
>> Student: No, sir.
>> Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
>> Student : No , sir.
>> Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
>> Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that
>> matter?
>> Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
>> Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
>> Student : Yes.
>> Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
>> say your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Me: That your argument rests on the unproven and unprovable premise
that science observes, or can observe, all things which exist. By
virtue of resting on an unproved premise, it cannot be taken as
conclusively proven.
Regards,
John
Thom Madura
1 - These are not MY arguments. THese were posted by another.
2 - I do not claim that science observes all things that can exist. I do
believe that all things that DO exist - have a scientific reason for
their existence.
However - I also note that whenever religion comes to the conclusion
that a "first cause" is required - something that is also not provable
- that they then create an ALimighty Omnicient Deity(s) - something that
is ALSO an unproven premise. It is just as possible that the universe
was created by the destruction of the "first cause" - or that the "first
cause" started the process and lets it go on by itself without
intervention. The big bang could well have just been a BIG SNEEZE.
It is also just as possible that "energy" and by relation "matter" are
infinite - and no "first cause" was ever required.
However - the proof required comes from those who make the claims about
something - not the the other way around. I need not prove a god does
not exist - those who claim a god does exist need to prove their claims
about their god. What they take on FAITH is not an answer - just another
bunch of unproven questions. That a god COULD exist is not proof that
one does. That is YOUR premise - and it is a false one. But then - you
assign traits to that god that are also unprovable as well.
You point out that your god is omniscient - please provide verifiable
scientific proof. You have none - nor do you even have a reasonable
reason for the statement to be true - ie - there is no reason why the
"first cause" must be almighty or omniscient - or even eternal.
3 - According to religion - the satan was given a choice by a god of
"Good or Evil". That directly says that the choice of good or evil
already existed - ie - both had already been created. Therefore - the
god must be the source of both good and evil. However - religion also
teaches that the choice was not equal - but coerced. IE - Do as I ask or
I will punish you completely and eternally. Hardly a free choice.
Religion also teaches that the deity is all good - and if that is the
case - then the entire story about Satan is out the window - since an
all good deity could not have created evil. Of course - there is no
proof of any of this - or even of a satan or god. It is simply a method
that was used by religion to control people - of which we have LOTS of
proof from historical record.
Toon
<matr...@charter.net> wrote:
> every
>human being that is alive and cognitive utilizes a brain,
You'd think that, but no.
> I most certainly
>possess a brain. Furthermore, since a number of scientific devices (which
>require no superstition to operate correctly plus consistently) can indeed
>not only prove that I possess a functional brain, without surgery, a number
>of other proven sciences will prove that my head is neither empty or
>non-functional. Even the usage of a simple scale can prove that my head is
>neither hollow or lighter than that of my fellow man.
And science knows things from observe ring the unobservable's effects.
>
>| Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH.
>| That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
>
>Prof: Remember this, RELIGION PROMISES ANSWERS, SCIENCE DELIVERS ANSWERS.
>Science gives you information. Science gives you electrical power. Science
>gives you computers. Science gives you chemisty.
Who created electricity, chemicals? god.
> Science gives you the
>ability to communicate instantly with any human being at any place on the
>Earth or the Moon. Science gives you better agriculture. Science gives you
>the ability to travel nearly effortlessly and inexpensively across the
>entire world. Science gives you medicine and mathematics.
But mathematics is the language god wrote the universe in.
>Prof: Since you are here to merely entertain yourself and refuse to learn,
>then you can be faithfully assured that you have failed the most basic
>aspects of paying attention in this class. In fact, I implore you to pray
>for a grade change for all the useless good that will gain you. I can also
>assure you that you have not only failed at life as well as your religion,
>but at thinking rationally. My class will require rational thinking, your
>ability to memorize real facts, and hard work to pass. You can WISH your
>life away uselessly, but the people that want to earn a real life of value
>will be WORKING FOR RESULTS to improve our living.
>
Somebody's full of holiday cheer all year round.
Toon
<evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Me: Before I can give my answer, I need on more piece of information.
>Professor: What is it?
>Me: Do you claim to be omniscient?
>Professor: No, of course not.
>Me: By what logic, then, do you profess to know what an omniscient
>being would or should do in any given circumstance?
Yes. If an omniscient being has long since established the rules,
anybody can know what that omniscient being would do in any given
situation that the rules apply to.
> This is no ad
>hominem attack against you; to prove that an omniscient God cannot
>exist, you must offer an event which contradicts the existence of an
>omniscient God.
Failure of prayer to heal a love one, as we're told it will do. If
there was a good god, he's make everything better. Thereofre, either
there's no god, or god is evil.
> But to know whether an event meets this criterion, you
>must necessarily be omniscient.
Sounds like avoidance to me.
>It may be that by allowing your brother
>to perish--which happens to all men anyway--
Irrelevant. it is the how and why that's in question.
>God has prevented something
>worse;
Doubtful.
> unless you are omniscient, you cannot claim with certainty that
>your brother's passing is worse than all other alternatives, or even
>that is is worse than any of them.
Well, the Prof's trying to pull people away from god, who wants people
to come to him. That's pretty much worse.
>>> Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella
>>> (Fellah - A peasant in an Arabic-speaking country, esp. in Egypt ). Is
Or fellow, mispronounced to a form of slang.
>>> God good?
No,
>>> Student :Yes.
>>> Prof: Is Satan good?
>>> Student : No.
>>> Prof: Where does Satan come from?
>
>Me: Satan was made by God. But having been made, he chose an evil path.
Because he was given the ability to choose, by god. That makes god
ultimately responsible. In fact, people can do whatever. god made
them, god wanted it to happen, and jesus died for the sins they
committed. Humans are free and clear of any and all wrong doing, so
why not wrong do? it's god's fault, and jesus has taken the
punishment on your behalf.
Perhaps god should have thought through things more, no?
>>> Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
>>> the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
We can see the effects of god all around us. Which is good enough in
science for black holes and dark matter.
>>> Student: No, sir.
>>> Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
>>> Student : No , sir.
And if he said yes, he's in the nut house.
>>> Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
I'm pretty sure it's impolite to go around sniffing god.
R.C. Payne
>>| Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH.
>>| That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
>>
>>Prof: Remember this, RELIGION PROMISES ANSWERS, SCIENCE DELIVERS ANSWERS.
>>Science gives you information. Science gives you electrical power. Science
>>gives you computers. Science gives you chemisty.
>
> Who created electricity, chemicals? god.
If you chose to attribute the natural effects that cause the universe as
we know it to come into being to something called "God", that's your
free choice. To assert that this is the same thing as the God described
in $holy_scripture is a very wild leap, and not one that has any
reliable evidence to support it.
>>Science gives you the
>>ability to communicate instantly with any human being at any place on the
>>Earth or the Moon. Science gives you better agriculture. Science gives you
>>the ability to travel nearly effortlessly and inexpensively across the
>>entire world. Science gives you medicine and mathematics.
>
> But mathematics is the language god wrote the universe in.
Everyone knows that God speaks English (late 16th century English, to be
exact). The point is that asserting the root cause of what we observe
to be "God" is all well and good, but there is no evidence that this is
so (nor yet evidence of any other cause). To make the connection
between this ultimate cause and the God described in a particular set of
old books is at best laughably naive, at worst deliberately deceitful.
Robin
Thom Madura
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:45:29 -0500, "George Johnson"
> <matr...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>> every
>> human being that is alive and cognitive utilizes a brain,
>
> You'd think that, but no.
>
>> I most certainly
>> possess a brain. Furthermore, since a number of scientific devices (which
>> require no superstition to operate correctly plus consistently) can indeed
>> not only prove that I possess a functional brain, without surgery, a number
>> of other proven sciences will prove that my head is neither empty or
>> non-functional. Even the usage of a simple scale can prove that my head is
>> neither hollow or lighter than that of my fellow man.
>
> And science knows things from observe ring the unobservable's effects.
>
>> | Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH.
>> | That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
>>
>> Prof: Remember this, RELIGION PROMISES ANSWERS, SCIENCE DELIVERS ANSWERS.
>> Science gives you information. Science gives you electrical power. Science
>> gives you computers. Science gives you chemisty.
>
> Who created electricity, chemicals? god.
Prove that!
>
>> Science gives you the
>> ability to communicate instantly with any human being at any place on the
>> Earth or the Moon. Science gives you better agriculture. Science gives you
>> the ability to travel nearly effortlessly and inexpensively across the
>> entire world. Science gives you medicine and mathematics.
>
> But mathematics is the language god wrote the universe in.
Prove that!
>
>
>> Prof: Since you are here to merely entertain yourself and refuse to learn,
>> then you can be faithfully assured that you have failed the most basic
>> aspects of paying attention in this class. In fact, I implore you to pray
>> for a grade change for all the useless good that will gain you. I can also
>> assure you that you have not only failed at life as well as your religion,
>> but at thinking rationally. My class will require rational thinking, your
>> ability to memorize real facts, and hard work to pass. You can WISH your
>> life away uselessly, but the people that want to earn a real life of value
>> will be WORKING FOR RESULTS to improve our living.
>>
>
> Somebody's full of holiday cheer all year round.
A person certainly has the right to BELIEVE in a lot of different things
- as long as they understand that they are BELIEF - not fact. Things
that cannot be proven true are just that - belief - and they fall into
the same category as a Child's Santa Claus - or Tooth Fairy.
Toon
wrote:
>Toon wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:45:29 -0500, "George Johnson"
>> <matr...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>| Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH.
>>>| That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
>>>
>>>Prof: Remember this, RELIGION PROMISES ANSWERS, SCIENCE DELIVERS ANSWERS.
>>>Science gives you information. Science gives you electrical power. Science
>>>gives you computers. Science gives you chemisty.
>>
>> Who created electricity, chemicals? god.
>
>If you chose to attribute the natural effects that cause the universe as
>we know it to come into being to something called "God", that's your
>free choice. To assert that this is the same thing as the God described
>in $holy_scripture is a very wild leap, and not one that has any
>reliable evidence to support it.
Exactly, the Cretaor god is not the religious god.
>Everyone knows that God speaks English (late 16th century English, to be
>exact).
He speaks every language. But the main one is mathematics.
> The point is that asserting the root cause of what we observe
>to be "God" is all well and good, but there is no evidence that this is
>so (nor yet evidence of any other cause). To make the connection
>between this ultimate cause and the God described in a particular set of
>old books is at best laughably naive, at worst deliberately deceitful.
Oh deceitful is the main view. Christianity by default requires a
deceptive god, or a lying one. The Jewish religion was first.
anything extra any new religion has that Judism does not is either
wrong, or the result of a lying god, or one who withheld information.
Jews do not believe in the Devil. Either god lied to Christians about
a devil, or he withheld such info from the Jews. Either way, not very
good and ever loving.
JohnN
> An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
> science has with God, The Almighty.
Science doesn't have a problem with any god. Deities do not figure
into the scientific method.
JohnN
Toon
wrote:
Scientists have a problem with anything they can't physically get
ahold of and experiment on. Sad part is, religion and science go hand
in hand, if only the religious nuts stopped taking things so dang
literally, and accept god might just talk in different terms than
humans.
People ask where did we come from. god says a pile of dirt. Suddenly,
man is transmogrified earth (backed up by turning to ash upon
burning). Science says life arrived in meteors and comets crashing to
Earth. AKA dirt, or a pile of dirt. How come god can't be talking
about that? Why can't he be giving a final answer on life? Why must
the answer be about humans' immediate ancestry?
So yes, man came from a big pile of dirt. Just not transmogrified
from dirt. But evolved over millions of years.
god says the Earth is over 5,000 years old. Science says 4.6 Billion.
Perhaps, god's time is different from ours, and 5000 to him is 4.6
Billion to us?
god says the first humans were Adam and Eve. Why can't he just call
the first male and female apes to beginning going human Adam and Eve?
Why must they be created as is from dirt and cloning/genetic
engineering?
Science and religion really do fit quite nicely, if you get over
literal interpretations.
JohnN
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:32:22 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 4, 3:34 pm, algagaa <jipksa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
> >> science has with God, The Almighty.
>
> >Science doesn't have a problem with any god. Deities do not figure
> >into the scientific method.
>
> >JohnN
>
> Scientists have a problem with anything they can't physically get
> ahold of and experiment on. Sad part is, religion and science go hand
> in hand, if only the religious nuts stopped taking things so dang
> literally, and accept god might just talk in different terms than
> humans.
The scientists I have known do not have a problem with what is
unquantifiable. Many of them are religious but god is not in the
equations. You are right about the religious nut jobs.
> People ask where did we come from. god says a pile of dirt. Suddenly,
> man is transmogrified earth (backed up by turning to ash upon
> burning). Science says life arrived in meteors and comets crashing to
> Earth. AKA dirt, or a pile of dirt. How come god can't be talking
> about that? Why can't he be giving a final answer on life? Why must
> the answer be about humans' immediate ancestry?
The astro-seeding by ET one possible origin for life. It is
interesting. It begs the question about where life first
originated.
Since we can not know the mind of any god, because there are none,
speculating about what a god can and can not do or did is pointless.
>
> So yes, man came from a big pile of dirt. Just not transmogrified
> from dirt. But evolved over millions of years.
>
> god says the Earth is over 5,000 years old. Science says 4.6 Billion.
> Perhaps, god's time is different from ours, and 5000 to him is 4.6
> Billion to us?
God has never reveled the age of the earth to anyone I have read. The
Bishop of Usher had a monk calculate the age and he got the Genesis
creation dated to about 4400 BC.
> god says the first humans were Adam and Eve. Why can't he just call
> the first male and female apes to beginning going human Adam and Eve?
> Why must they be created as is from dirt and cloning/genetic
> engineering?
>
One god named the first humans Adam and Eve. Others had their own
names no doubt. Again, no one can know the mind of the non-existing.
Why must humans be created? To insure the superiority of the deity
over humans. If humans are a natural product of this earth, then
there is nothing special about them, and that makes some people with
personality disorders very sad.
> Science and religion really do fit quite nicely, if you get over
> literal interpretations.
I don't see any need for religion in science. I don't see how they
fit together in any how shape or form. Religion deals with the maybes
of imaginary beings. Science deals with the evidence of our existing
universe.
JohnN
Thom Madura
Since we cannot establish the existence of any god - we don't know if it
is even an animate creature - if at all.
because there are none,
> speculating about what a god can and can not do or did is pointless.
>
>> So yes, man came from a big pile of dirt. Just not transmogrified
>> from dirt. But evolved over millions of years.
>>
>> god says the Earth is over 5,000 years old.
Oh - really? Which if the HUNDREDS of gods said that?
Science says 4.6 Billion.
>> Perhaps, god's time is different from ours, and 5000 to him is 4.6
>> Billion to us?
>
> God has never reveled the age of the earth to anyone I have read.
A god has not revealed the age of the earth to anyone - whether you have
read them or not.
The
> Bishop of Usher had a monk calculate the age and he got the Genesis
> creation dated to about 4400 BC.
>
>> god says the first humans were Adam and Eve.
This is nonsense - for a very basic reason - they never existed. Even IF
they had - their names were probably not in English - which was not
invented in BC.
Lollipop
ancient Hebrew Bible. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Edward McArdle
<506412b6-2197-4471...@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > god says the Earth is over 5,000 years old. Science says 4.6 Billion.
> > Perhaps, god's time is different from ours, and 5000 to him is 4.6
> > Billion to us?
>
Most mathematicians would agree that 4.6 billion is over 5,000.
--
my URL,
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Thom Madura
You did not - we know that this story is not true now - even the
Catholic Church has recognized evolution. The story is much like the
rest of the bible - a bunch of fictional tales that (Sometimes) make
moral arguments.
Toon
<jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since we can not know the mind of any god, because there are none,
So, god's a brainless moron? That'd explain so much.
>One god named the first humans Adam and Eve. Others had their own
>names no doubt. Again, no one can know the mind of the non-existing.
Good point. All those multigods were nonexistant.
>Why must humans be created? To insure the superiority of the deity
>over humans. If humans are a natural product of this earth, then
>there is nothing special about them, and that makes some people with
>personality disorders very sad.
It's also why aliens must nto exist, lest god loves them more than
humans. Humans must be god's best of the best.
>I don't see any need for religion in science. I don't see how they
>fit together in any how shape or form. Religion deals with the maybes
>of imaginary beings. Science deals with the evidence of our existing
>universe.
If that evidence is real, and not but an illusion. Maybe we're all in
some wacky, SFX heavy series of another reality? Myabe we truly have
no free will, because we secretly have writers writing for us? Or
maybe we're misinturrpreting what we see. Evdience has shown stars
older than the unvierse, and objects moving faster than light. Both
of those were wrong. Who knows what else we'll learn is wrong.
Toon
<mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>In article
><506412b6-2197-4471...@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > god says the Earth is over 5,000 years old. Science says 4.6 Billion.
>> > Perhaps, god's time is different from ours, and 5000 to him is 4.6
>> > Billion to us?
>>
>
>Most mathematicians would agree that 4.6 billion is over 5,000.
Using human math, not diety math. Then again, in some computer
language, 6 times 9 = 42. Yet in our language, it is 54.
Thom Madura
The way I was taught - the universe includes EVERYTHING. So - there may
be stars that are older than we thought our universe was - but they
cannot be older than the universe.
Louis Epstein
On the contrary,no other explanation for existence is possible.
: - that they then create an ALimighty Omnicient Deity(s) - something that
: is ALSO an unproven premise. It is just as possible that the universe
: was created by the destruction of the "first cause" - or that the "first
: cause" started the process and lets it go on by itself without
: intervention. The big bang could well have just been a BIG SNEEZE.
:
: It is also just as possible that "energy" and by relation "matter" are
: infinite - and no "first cause" was ever required.
No...there still HAS to be a REASON for matter/energy to exist.
: However - the proof required comes from those who make the claims about
: something - not the the other way around. I need not prove a god does
: not exist - those who claim a god does exist need to prove their claims
: about their god.
God is an ANSWER,not a question.
There is no rational basis to doubt the necessity of an Infinitely First
Cause.
: What they take on FAITH is not an answer - just another
: bunch of unproven questions. That a god COULD exist is not proof that
: one does.
That ANYTHING exists is proof that God must.
: That is YOUR premise - and it is a false one. But then - you
: assign traits to that god that are also unprovable as well.
:
: You point out that your god is omniscient - please provide verifiable
: scientific proof. You have none - nor do you even have a reasonable
: reason for the statement to be true - ie - there is no reason why the
: "first cause" must be almighty or omniscient - or even eternal.
A proximate cause may expire,and there is no evidence that
it is particularly "personal",but the Infinitely First Cause
transcends all that exists because of it,and it is the only
viable explanation for existence of any kind.
:
: 3 - According to religion - the satan was given a choice by a god of
: "Good or Evil". That directly says that the choice of good or evil
: already existed - ie - both had already been created. Therefore - the
: god must be the source of both good and evil. However - religion also
: teaches that the choice was not equal - but coerced. IE - Do as I ask or
: I will punish you completely and eternally. Hardly a free choice.
: Religion also teaches that the deity is all good - and if that is the
: case - then the entire story about Satan is out the window - since an
: all good deity could not have created evil. Of course - there is no
: proof of any of this - or even of a satan or god. It is simply a method
: that was used by religion to control people - of which we have LOTS of
: proof from historical record.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: On Feb 9, 9:24?am, Toon <t...@toon.com> wrote:
:> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:32:22 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com>
:> wrote:
:>
:> >On Feb 4, 3:34?pm, algagaa <jipksa...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> >> An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
:> >> science has with God, The Almighty.
:>
:> >into the scientific method.
:>
:> >JohnN
:>
:> Scientists have a problem with anything they can't physically get
:> in hand, if only the religious nuts stopped taking things so dang
:> literally, and accept god might just talk in different terms than
:
: The scientists I have known do not have a problem with what is
: unquantifiable. Many of them are religious but god is not in the
: equations. You are right about the religious nut jobs.
:
:> man is transmogrified earth (backed up by turning to ash upon
:> Earth. AKA dirt, or a pile of dirt. ?How come god can't be talking
:> about that? ?Why can't he be giving a final answer on life? Why must
:> the answer be about humans' immediate ancestry?
:
: The astro-seeding by ET one possible origin for life. It is
: interesting. It begs the question about where life first
: originated.
I'm more inclined to the "primordial soup" theory than panspermia.
: Since we can not know the mind of any god, because there are none,
We have no knowledge of the mental properties of any gods
nor could we expect to be capable of comprehending them;
there need be no god other than the absolutely essential
Infinitely First Cause on which all existence is necessarily
contingent.
: speculating about what a god can and can not do or did is pointless.
:
:>
:> So yes, man came from a big pile of dirt. ?Just not transmogrified
:> from dirt. ?But evolved over millions of years.
:>
:> god says the Earth is over 5,000 years old. ?Science says 4.6 Billion.
:> Perhaps, god's time is different from ours, and 5000 to him is 4.6
:> Billion to us?
:
: God has never reveled the age of the earth to anyone I have read. The
: Bishop of Usher had a monk calculate the age and he got the Genesis
: creation dated to about 4400 BC.
There is not and never has been a "Bishop of Usher";
James Ussher (1581-1656) was the Episcopalian Archbishop of Armagh
from 1625.The year he worked out from Bible study was 4004 BC
(a specific day in October).
The Jewish calendar ascribes a somewhat lower age to the Earth
(5769 years) and the Byzantine calendar a somewhat higher one.
:> god says the first humans were Adam and Eve. ?Why can't he just call
:> the first male and female apes to beginning going human Adam and Eve?
:> Why must they be created as is from dirt and cloning/genetic
:> engineering?
:
: One god named the first humans Adam and Eve. Others had their own
: names no doubt. Again, no one can know the mind of the non-existing.
Adam and Eve are names ascribed by human legend.
"God" applies properly only to the Infinitely First Cause,
not to any books alleging things about God.
: Why must humans be created? To insure the superiority of the deity
: over humans. If humans are a natural product of this earth, then
: there is nothing special about them, and that makes some people with
: personality disorders very sad.
:
:> Science and religion really do fit quite nicely, if you get over
:> literal interpretations.
:
: I don't see any need for religion in science. I don't see how they
: fit together in any how shape or form. Religion deals with the maybes
: of imaginary beings. Science deals with the evidence of our existing
: universe.
:
:
: JohnN
"God" is the only explanation as to why there is a Universe.
All details can be legitimately questioned and investigated,
but to deny the necessity of an Infinitely First Cause is
wholly insane.
BubblyBabs
"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:hc2dnZKAF98wtXXV...@velocitywest.net...
Spreading your religious views... Yrch...
Babs
Toon
wrote:
There is a simpler thing. god claims to help those who ask for it
(praying). Nowhere does god ever say, i'll do it, as long as i
believe it's for the best. As logn as it won't make things worse.
i'll more than happily allow their continued suffering ro death if it
make the world a better place, or prevent sit from getting worse.
Therefore, god has entered into a contract with his children to help
upon prayer. Failure to do so is a violation of it. Why he chooses
to violate it is irrelevant. In fact, he can't even be bothered to
tell anyone one he won't help. Instead, he demands unwavering blind
trust. In a contract breaker. And he wonders why people doubt he
even exists.
>Spreading your religious views... Yrch...
>Babs
god must be found individulaly. Nobody can offer any proof for
anybody else. Reading the above crap will never make anayoen go,
D'OH! I'm such a fool. Of course god exists. In fact, it only
proves at best a contract violating god who won't help the suffering
exists, Far worse than no god at all.
So, go find god in your own way. Hopefuly, you'll like the god you
find. If you don't, don't attact believers with imagianry this and
that.
There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
evidence to support the universe came into being without god. All
this blathering blatherskite gets you nowhere. Except hated by those
who don't care about your obession with forcing your beliefs on
everybody else.
I think a bigger cocnern is determining if Kent Brockman is right, and
the leprechauns have all gone extinct. The loss of any group is
tragic.
Louis Epstein
: On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:37:19 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
What evidence is there of this contract?
A "scripture" purporting to be by God can't bind God
if (like all such known to man) it is really the work
of fallible men.
:>Spreading your religious views... Yrch...
:>Babs
:
: god must be found individulaly. Nobody can offer any proof for
: anybody else. Reading the above crap will never make anayoen go,
: D'OH! I'm such a fool. Of course god exists. In fact, it only
: proves at best a contract violating god who won't help the suffering
: exists, Far worse than no god at all.
:
: So, go find god in your own way. Hopefuly, you'll like the god you
: find. If you don't, don't attact believers with imagianry this and
: that.
:
: There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
: evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
there were a God to cause it.
: All this blathering blatherskite gets you nowhere. Except hated by
: those who don't care about your obession with forcing your beliefs on
: everybody else.
:
: I think a bigger cocnern is determining if Kent Brockman is right, and
: the leprechauns have all gone extinct. The loss of any group is
: tragic.
Prove they existed.
BubblyBabs
> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
>
> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
> there were a God to cause it.
Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
What gets me with those who are religious is how adaptable they are with
their views... I remember people used to say that there weren't dinosaurs
because they weren't mentioned in the bible.... Then, as proof built up,
people started saying that we don't know how many years is considered a "God
year"... One year for him might me a million for us... So they said that
dinosaurs could have been created by God and then died out before he made
man...
Babs
hanso...@hotmail.com
> All details can be legitimately questioned and investigated,
> but to deny the necessity of an Infinitely First Cause is
> wholly insane.
And you've said the same thing in various different ways in this
thread, but can you prove that assertion without invoking it as part
of the proof?
I do tend to agree, as it happens - at least in part - but the past
103 years of physics have taught us again and again that common sense
cannot be trusted in matters of physics and cosmology because it is
routinely flouted by the universe. This is not of itself an argument
for denying First Cause, but it does constitute an entirely rational
basis for not taking it for granted and for expecting it, at the very
least, to come with a twist.
We already know, for example, that First Cause cannot be "first" in
the chronological sense because time itself is a post-Big-Bang
property of the universe. Remove the universe and you remove any
notion of before and after, leaving First Cause in a certain amount of
ontological difficulty. There are ways around this, but don't expect
First Cause to be first, and don't expect it to be a "cause",
either...
--
Mike.
Toon
wrote:
>
>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
>>
>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
>> there were a God to cause it.
>
>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
>What gets me with those who are religious is how adaptable they are with
>their views... I remember people used to say that there weren't dinosaurs
>because they weren't mentioned in the bible.... Then, as proof built up,
>people started saying that we don't know how many years is considered a "God
>year"... One year for him might me a million for us... So they said that
>dinosaurs could have been created by God and then died out before he made
>man...
>
>Babs
>
Only logical assumption if god exists and our scientific timeline is
right. Of course, the truth is, the Creator god is not the religious
god, but most can't handle the truth.
Interesting, no, that the religious god, one who is full of
unconditional love, kills all the time. Killed the dinos off. Flooded
the world to eliminate humanity. Created diseases. And Mr i forgive
everyone created hell as punishment.
I think people are using a different definition for good and love than
I am. It's like, Remember, god loves you, unless you piss him off.
BubblyBabs
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:89nue416gpak2nnt7...@4ax.com...
Interesting points you've made there...
Babs
Louis Epstein
:
:> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
:> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
:>
:> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
:> there were a God to cause it.
:
: Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
: happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
: and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
: Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
: that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
God is by definition the ultimate reason it occurred,
and without a God there's no reason it could have occurred.
: What gets me with those who are religious is how adaptable they are with
: their views... I remember people used to say that there weren't dinosaurs
: because they weren't mentioned in the bible.... Then, as proof built up,
: people started saying that we don't know how many years is considered a "God
: year"... One year for him might me a million for us... So they said that
: dinosaurs could have been created by God and then died out before he made
: man...
:
: Babs
I've never been religious...it's just nonsensical for
there to be no reason for all-that-is!!
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
: wrote:
:
:>
:>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
:>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
:>>
:>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
:>> there were a God to cause it.
:>
:>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
:>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
:>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
:>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
:>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
:
: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
:>What gets me with those who are religious is how adaptable they are with
:>their views... I remember people used to say that there weren't dinosaurs
:>because they weren't mentioned in the bible.... Then, as proof built up,
:>people started saying that we don't know how many years is considered a "God
:>year"... One year for him might me a million for us... So they said that
:>dinosaurs could have been created by God and then died out before he made
:>man...
:>
:>Babs
:>
:
: Only logical assumption if god exists and our scientific timeline is
: right. Of course, the truth is, the Creator god is not the religious
: god, but most can't handle the truth.
Religions make guesses about God,and are usually wrong.
: Interesting, no, that the religious god, one who is full of
: unconditional love, kills all the time. Killed the dinos off. Flooded
: the world to eliminate humanity. Created diseases. And Mr i forgive
: everyone created hell as punishment.
:
: I think people are using a different definition for good and love than
: I am. It's like, Remember, god loves you, unless you piss him off.
-=-=-
Louis Epstein
You have to remember that God is more-dimensional than the material
universe and transcends all its properties.The limitations we seem
to see can't apply to God.
hanso...@hotmail.com
Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
--
Mike.
Toon
wrote:
he also murders babies. What kind of loving supreme being let's
babies die, or takes them himself? And then people justify it as,
well, obviously that was the next Hitler, so it was a good thing.
Being mad at Egyptians for enslaving Jews is one thing. Slaying their
first born because they won't free the Jews is quite another.
Toon
wrote:
It's just avoidance. god must exist. god must have been first. god
can do whatever he feels like, that's why.
Of course, god and paranormal stuff might just require a whole new set
of tools for proof. The scientific method doesn't work on them, but
another way would. A different way that conclusively proves the same
as scientific method, but in a different way. A way that doesn't
involve slapping it on a table, poking and prodding it.
BubblyBabs
There is a reason... The Law of Physics and all that stuff...
Babs
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>: wrote:
>:
>:>
>:>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
>:>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
>:>>
>:>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
>:>> there were a God to cause it.
>:>
>:>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
>:>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
>:>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
>:>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
>:>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
>:
>: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
>
>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
Welshdog
--
News and views... for people like youse!!
Australian Opinion
(http://australianopinion.com)
Not as strange as it looks!
Louis Epstein
: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
: wrote:
:
:>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
:>: wrote:
:>:
:>:>
:>:>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
:>:>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
:>:>>
:>:>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
:>:>> there were a God to cause it.
:>:>
:>:>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
:>:>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
:>:>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
:>:>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
:>:>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
:>:
:>: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
:>
:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
:
: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
and constitute the explanation for the
existence of all others.
Having this attribute makes that entity God.
So are you saying the Universe IS God?
Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.
: Welshdog
Louis Epstein
:
: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
God is the reason there are laws of physics!
Louis Epstein
Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
terra cognita is to be explained.
You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>hanso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>: On Oct 11, 1:59?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>:> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:> : On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
<snip>
>: Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
>: unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
>: come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
>: incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
>: transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
>: product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
>Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
>The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
>terra cognita is to be explained.
>You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
>anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
Not even the eternally expanding and contracting universe??
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>: wrote:
>:>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
>:>:>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
>:>:>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
>:>:>> there were a God to cause it.
>:>:>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
>:>:>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
>:>:>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
>:>:>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
>:>:>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
>:>: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
>:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
>: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
>and constitute the explanation for the
>existence of all others.
>Having this attribute makes that entity God.
>So are you saying the Universe IS God?
Can you prove it isn't?
>Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.
Depends on your perspective! If, as you claim, 'god' was uniquely
created then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have been
uniquely created instead *not* as well!
Besides... it is quite within the bounds of logical possibility for a
god to have created this universe with its physical laws and yet,
being outside those laws itself, share existence with a multitude of
other beings we'd consider to be gods... tho maybe not the god of our
universe!!
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
>: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
>: news:naOdnf-IpdIMom3V...@velocitywest.net...
>:> BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
<snip>
>:> I've never been religious...it's just nonsensical for
>:> there to be no reason for all-that-is!!
>: There is a reason... The Law of Physics and all that stuff...
>God is the reason there are laws of physics!
Or... the laws of physics are the reason there is a god?
Man created god in his own image and saw that it was good.....!!
hanso...@hotmail.com
> :> You have to remember that God is more-dimensional than the material
> :> universe and transcends all its properties.The limitations we seem
> :> to see can't apply to God.
> :
> : Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
> : unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
> : come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
> : incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
> : transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
> : product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
>
> Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
> The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
> terra cognita is to be explained.
>
> You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
> anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
I have already defended that position, and successfully so. You simply
didn't notice. So let's try again:
> : The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
> : come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
> : incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
> : transcendent god, perhaps, or even "infinitely first cause" - but you need to be clear that it is a
> : product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
--
Mike.
DaveD
"Welsh Dog" <wels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0sh3f41hvl7jqccgk...@4ax.com...
>>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>
>>:>:>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
>>:>:>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
>
>>:>:>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
>>:>:>> there were a God to cause it.
>
>>:>:>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something
>>that
>>:>:>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop
>>expanding
>>:>:>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over
>>again...
>>:>:>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the
>>planets
>>:>:>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
>
>>:>: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
>
>>:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
>
>>: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>
>>Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
>>and constitute the explanation for the
>>existence of all others.
>
>>Having this attribute makes that entity God.
>
>>So are you saying the Universe IS God?
>
> Can you prove it isn't?
Hmm, the problem with this sort of thing is that first you need to agree on
a definition for what god is, and isn't. I doubt such an agreement will be
easy or quickly reached!
>>Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.
>
> Depends on your perspective! If, as you claim, 'god' was uniquely
> created then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have been
> uniquely created instead *not* as well!
>
> Besides... it is quite within the bounds of logical possibility for a
> god to have created this universe with its physical laws and yet,
> being outside those laws itself, share existence with a multitude of
> other beings we'd consider to be gods... tho maybe not the god of our
> universe!!
>
> Welshdog
Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent existence,
deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and
eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather than
someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo sum": I
think therefore I am.
You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence: the
first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsupported
assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of an
alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.
DaveD
Toon
wrote:
>> I've never been religious...it's just nonsensical for
>> there to be no reason for all-that-is!!
>
>There is a reason... The Law of Physics and all that stuff...
>Babs
>
But who declared those laws?
Toon
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:47 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>wrote:
>>BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
>>: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
>>: news:naOdnf-IpdIMom3V...@velocitywest.net...
>>:> BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>:> I've never been religious...it's just nonsensical for
>>:> there to be no reason for all-that-is!!
>
>>: There is a reason... The Law of Physics and all that stuff...
>
>>God is the reason there are laws of physics!
>
>Or... the laws of physics are the reason there is a god?
Makes no sense. Physics would not create a god.
>Man created god in his own image and saw that it was good.....!!
>
>Welshdog
Define good? Man creates a god that floods them, sickens them, kills
them. How is that good?
Toon
wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>>: wrote:
>>:
>>:>
>>:>> : There is nodirect evidence to support god. There is no direct
>>:>> : evidence to support the universe came into being without god.
>>:>>
>>:>> There is no possibility of there being a Universe unless
>>:>> there were a God to cause it.
>>:>
>>:>Why does there need to be a "God" to cause it? It's just something that
>>:>happened... Maybe it's as some speculate - the universe will stop expanding
>>:>and will collapse in on itself and the process will start over again...
>>:>Maybe next time there won't be any lifeforms at all on any of the planets
>>:>that form... But there doesn't need to be a god for this to occur...
>>:
>>: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
>>
>>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
Prove it.
>If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>
>Welshdog
Why would anyone chose the name god to describe a diety? It's dog
backwards. Devil is lived. Think about it.
Welsh Dog
<dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
>"Welsh Dog" <wels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0sh3f41hvl7jqccgk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:07 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>>>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>>>:>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>>>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
<snip>
>>>:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
>>>: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>>>Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
>>>and constitute the explanation for the
>>>existence of all others.
>
>>>Having this attribute makes that entity God.
>>>So are you saying the Universe IS God?
>> Can you prove it isn't?
>Hmm, the problem with this sort of thing is that first you need to agree on
>a definition for what god is, and isn't. I doubt such an agreement will be
>easy or quickly reached!
So what is the purpose of the discussion in the thread if even
definitions are something you think we'd never agree on?? :)
>>>Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.
>> Depends on your perspective! If, as you claim, 'god' was uniquely
>> created then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have been
>> uniquely created instead *not* as well!
>> Besides... it is quite within the bounds of logical possibility for a
>> god to have created this universe with its physical laws and yet,
>> being outside those laws itself, share existence with a multitude of
>> other beings we'd consider to be gods... tho maybe not the god of our
>> universe!!
>Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent existence,
>deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and
>eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather than
>someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo sum": I
>think therefore I am.
>You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence: the
>first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsupported
>assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of an
>alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.
A logical possibility doesn't require proof... it simply 'is'.
Welsh Dog
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:51:43 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:47 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>>wrote:
>>>BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
>>>: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
>>>: news:naOdnf-IpdIMom3V...@velocitywest.net...
>>>:> BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>:> I've never been religious...it's just nonsensical for
>>>:> there to be no reason for all-that-is!!
>>>: There is a reason... The Law of Physics and all that stuff...
>>>God is the reason there are laws of physics!
>>Or... the laws of physics are the reason there is a god?
>Makes no sense. Physics would not create a god.
Of course physics wouldn't... but the laws would in a circuitous way.
It's observation of natural events that makes people afraid of the
unknown and gods are created to populate the world in order to give
meaning to it.
It's living within the 'the laws of physics' in action that has caused
man to create god.
The real joke would be if 'god' was actually 'out there'! :)
>>Man created god in his own image and saw that it was good.....!!
>>
>>Welshdog
>
>Define good? Man creates a god that floods them, sickens them, kills
>them. How is that good?
It's good from mans perspective because it imbues all objects and
happenings with 'cause' and allows them to withdraw from the pathetic
reality of our lives which is that all of existence is simply an
ongoing chemical process.
Either way it makes *no* difference whatever. As 'creations' of a god
its motivations would be far beyond our comprehension. What we
consider to be 'cause' might have no meaning whatever to 'it'. I
figure my best option is to lead as good a life as I can in relation
to my circumstances and hope for the best.
Welsh Dog
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:11:27 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>>>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>>>: wrote:
<snip>
>>>: I think the universe's creation created god, as a way to help run it.
>>>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
>Prove it.
>>If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>Why would anyone chose the name god to describe a diety? It's dog
>backwards. Devil is lived. Think about it.
Worse yet... Santa reformed is Satan... the angel of excess!!
Louis Epstein
: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:07 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
No,only the reason ALL these "gods" existed would be THE God.
Louis Epstein
:
: "Welsh Dog" <wels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A contention that is the convenient refuge of the atheist,
but the impossibility of an alternative is absolute.
Louis Epstein
: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:47 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
: wrote:
:>BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
:>: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
:>: news:naOdnf-IpdIMom3V...@velocitywest.net...
:>:> BubblyBabs <n...@fractalfairy.com> wrote:
:
: <snip>
:
:>:> I've never been religious...it's just nonsensical for
:>:> there to be no reason for all-that-is!!
:
:>: There is a reason... The Law of Physics and all that stuff...
:
:>God is the reason there are laws of physics!
:
: Or... the laws of physics are the reason there is a god?
No...because anything created by the laws of physics wouldn't
be the reason there ARE laws of physics,and anything that
wasn't the ultimate reason there are laws of physics couldn't
be God.
: Man created god in his own image and saw that it was good.....!!
No...man can only create theories about God.
: Welshdog
Louis Epstein
: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:45:19 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
: wrote:
:>hanso...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>: On Oct 11, 1:59?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:>:> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:> : On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:
: <snip>
:
:>: Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
:>: unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
:>: come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
:>: incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
:>: transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
:>: product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
:
:>Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
:>The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
:>terra cognita is to be explained.
:
:>You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
:>anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
:
: Not even the eternally expanding and contracting universe??
That can only be explained by there being a God wanting it to happen.
: Welshdog
Louis Epstein
: On Oct 12, 1:45?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> :> You have to remember that God is more-dimensional than the material
:> :> universe and transcends all its properties.The limitations we seem
:> :> to see can't apply to God.
:> :
:> : Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
:> : unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
:> : come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
:> : incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
:> : transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
:> : product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
:>
:> Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
:> The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
:> terra cognita is to be explained.
:>
:> You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
:> anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
:
: I have already defended that position, and successfully so. You simply
: didn't notice.
The "success" was self-delusion on your part.
So let's try again:
:
:> : The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
:> : come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
:> : incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
:> : transcendent god, perhaps, or even "infinitely first cause" - but you need to be clear that it is a
:> : product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
Once again,this argument fails for reasons I stated.
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
>Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent existence,
>deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and
>eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather than
>someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo sum": I
>think therefore I am.
>
>You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence: the
>first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsupported
>assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of an
>alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.
>
>DaveD
That's how Louis works. He says things must be by pure definition,
then ducks anything that proves him wrong. And throws our own
complaints back in our faces.
The truth is, there is no absolute reason for the universe to have
been created by god. There is also no absolute reason to believe the
universe wasn't created by god. All we know is, seemingly 13.7
Billion years ago, an alleged Big Bang created the universe. Who or
what or why such an even transpired is unknown.
It's like me handing you a shoe, and asking you to describe the little
kid in the sweatshop forced to create it. His/Her gender, name,
looks, the clothes worn at the time, etc. You can't do it. I don't
even have proof a kid in a sweatshop made it. Maybe it was a legit
factory worker. A kid must have made it is not proof. That is a
generally accepted opinion that is probably correct. But no proof
exists but heresay. My insistence that there can be no other
explanation, and insisting my ponderings are legit proof is not
undeniable proof. It is not evidence. Even if in the end I'm right,
I have failed to prove that rightness just by saying Trust me. I know
better. I thought it out fully and determined that only a sweatshop
kid could have made it. The very fact there is a shoe necessitates a
sweatshop kid having made it.
One random person's word is not proof, no matter his convictions. And
if he is right, good for him. Too bad he had no proof to back it up.
No proof at all. Proof being testable and retestable with the same
exact outcome each time.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:07 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>: wrote:
>:>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>:>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>:>:>: wrote:
>:>:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
>:>: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>:>Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
>:>and constitute the explanation for the
>:>existence of all others.
>:>Having this attribute makes that entity God.
>:>So are you saying the Universe IS God?
>: Can you prove it isn't?
>:>Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.
>: Depends on your perspective! If, as you claim, 'god' was uniquely
>: created then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have been
>: uniquely created instead *not* as well!
>: Besides... it is quite within the bounds of logical possibility for a
>: god to have created this universe with its physical laws and yet,
>: being outside those laws itself, share existence with a multitude of
>: other beings we'd consider to be gods... tho maybe not the god of our
>: universe!!
>No,only the reason ALL these "gods" existed would be THE God.
I think you're missing the point.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:45:19 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>: wrote:
>:>hanso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>: On Oct 11, 1:59?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>:>:> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>:> : On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
<snip>
>:>Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
>:>The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
>:>terra cognita is to be explained.
>:>You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
>:>anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
>: Not even the eternally expanding and contracting universe??
>That can only be explained by there being a God wanting it to happen.
Not at all. Something that has always existed has no need of 'first
cause'.
In fact that isn't true. You seem to consider 'god' to be a sentient
being whereas the concept of an eternal unthinking universe governed
solely by the laws of physics is far easier to accept than the eternal
existence of a being who developed fully formed and conscious!!
Louis Epstein
: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:53:02 +0100, "DaveD"
: <dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
:
:>Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent existence,
:>deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and
:>eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather than
:>someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo sum": I
:>think therefore I am.
:>
:>You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence: the
:>first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsupported
:>assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of an
:>alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.
:>
:>DaveD
:
: That's how Louis works. He says things must be by pure definition,
: then ducks anything that proves him wrong. And throws our own
: complaints back in our faces.
:
: The truth is, there is no absolute reason for the universe to have
: been created by god. There is also no absolute reason to believe the
: universe wasn't created by god. All we know is, seemingly 13.7
: Billion years ago, an alleged Big Bang created the universe. Who or
: what or why such an even transpired is unknown.
The ultimate why is unknown,perhaps,but by DEFINITION,it is "God".
: It's like me handing you a shoe, and asking you to describe the little
: kid in the sweatshop forced to create it. His/Her gender, name,
: looks, the clothes worn at the time, etc. You can't do it. I don't
: even have proof a kid in a sweatshop made it. Maybe it was a legit
: factory worker. A kid must have made it is not proof.
"It must have been made",however,
is definitively true.
It can not be its own cause of existence.
That is a
: generally accepted opinion that is probably correct. But no proof
: exists but heresay. My insistence that there can be no other
: explanation, and insisting my ponderings are legit proof is not
: undeniable proof. It is not evidence. Even if in the end I'm right,
: I have failed to prove that rightness just by saying Trust me. I know
: better. I thought it out fully and determined that only a sweatshop
: kid could have made it. The very fact there is a shoe necessitates a
: sweatshop kid having made it.
No,that it have a maker.
Sweatshopkiddists are just one "theological school",
but the necessity of there being a maker can not be
sanely questioned.
Louis Epstein
: On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:31:41 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
I think YOU'RE missing the point.
: Welshdog
Louis Epstein
: On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:40:16 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
: wrote:
:>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:45:19 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
:>: wrote:
:>:>hanso...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:>: On Oct 11, 1:59?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:>:>:> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:>:> : On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:
: <snip>
:
:>:>Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
:>:>The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
:>:>terra cognita is to be explained.
:
:>:>You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
:>:>anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
:
:>: Not even the eternally expanding and contracting universe??
:
:>That can only be explained by there being a God wanting it to happen.
:
: Not at all. Something that has always existed has no need of 'first
: cause'.
There must be a reason it "has always existed".
: In fact that isn't true. You seem to consider 'god' to be a sentient
: being whereas the concept of an eternal unthinking universe governed
: solely by the laws of physics is far easier to accept than the eternal
: existence of a being who developed fully formed and conscious!!
I don't know that the Infinitely First Cause is "personal" in nature
at all...only that it transcends all it has caused.Physical AND
metaphysical.
hanso...@hotmail.com
The most that reason amounts to here is that there is a gap in our
knowledge. We do not know what fills that gap: in particular, we
cannot say with certainty that it contains what you have described as
infinitely first cause. You believe that it must, but your reasons
fall far short of proof, particularly given the universe's track-
record of doing stuff that nobody had previously dreamed of being
remotely possible. And as it happens, a causeless beginning is not so
hard to put together in a logically consistent manner (just ask a
mathematician), so there is no reason at all why the universe may not
do so.
We simply don't know, and for you to assume that you do know (and to
label any dissent as insane) is rather arrogant.
--
Mike.
Toon
wrote:
Well the question is, why should our god be THE god of the beyond? If
there are other gods, governing other universes, why should our's be
the god god? Maybe ours is the lowest of the low, stuck running
things for a bunch of idiot hairless apes who kill in the name of the
one who said don't kill?
Toon
wrote:
The same really. Why should a universe suddenly be? To keep
expanding and to increase that rate? To have laws of physics? To
have so many constants that together allow for life on at least one
planet? Between magically happening, and some dude wanting it, some
dude wins out. At least you get a feel of a purpose, a reason,
however unknown it ultimately is. Everything just coincidentally
happening is mind boggling.
Toon
wrote:
There is no proof god created the universe. There is no proof the
universe arose on it's own. All we have is faith or lack thereof. We
have ZERO evidence to prove either one. We have evidence that
supports our beliefs, but beliefs can be wrong, and evidence
misinterpreted (unintentionally) to support it. We have evidence the
Earth is the center of all. Just watch things rotate around it. But
we're wrong. The Earth is not the center of all. Just from our
viewpoint. From our viewpoint, we can't say god did create the
universe, or it didn't need god. Myabe if we find a galactic By god,
OK. Until then, there is only personal belief. To deny another's
belief is wrong. My belief is god created everything. I still accept
the possibility the universe could have come onto it's own. I just
don't believe that possibility is right. But I can very easily be
wrong.
I accept the possibility someone can win the Lotto twice with the same
numbers in the same year. I don't believe that'll ever happen. But I
can be wrong.
Louis Epstein
: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:12:15 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
Now that's DEFINITELY missing the point.
Only the Infinitely First Cause,creator of ALL else,is "God".
A subordinate being that you may consider "our god" is irrelevant
compared to THE God.
Louis Epstein
: On Oct 13, 1:41?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>
:> : On Oct 12, 1:45?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> :> :> You have to remember that God is more-dimensional than the material
:> :> :> universe and transcends all its properties.The limitations we seem
:> :> :> to see can't apply to God.
:> :> :
:> :> : Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
:> :> : unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
:> :> : come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
:> :> : incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
:> :> : transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
:> :> : product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
:> :>
:> :> Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
:> :> The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
:> :> terra cognita is to be explained.
:> :>
:> :> You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
:> :> anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
:> :
:> : I have already defended that position, and successfully so. You simply
:> : didn't notice.
:>
:> The "success" was self-delusion on your part.
:> ?So let's try again:
:> :
:> :> : The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
:> :> : come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
:> :> : incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
:> :> : transcendent god, perhaps, or even "infinitely first cause" - but you need to be clear that it is a
:> :> : product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
:>
:> Once again,this argument fails for reasons I stated.
:
: The most that reason amounts to here is that there is a gap in our
: knowledge. We do not know what fills that gap: in particular, we
: cannot say with certainty that it contains what you have described as
: infinitely first cause.
The gap we speak of is where the Infinitely First Cause goes.
No amount of ignorance or blindness concerning the details of
the IFC can call the existence of the IFC into question.
: You believe that it must, but your reasons
: fall far short of proof, particularly given the universe's track-
: record of doing stuff that nobody had previously dreamed of being
: remotely possible. And as it happens, a causeless beginning is not so
: hard to put together in a logically consistent manner (just ask a
: mathematician), so there is no reason at all why the universe may not
: do so.
A mathematician will tell you that an infinite sequence can have a
beginning.
To believe things to be self-contained is to think in too few dimensions.
: We simply don't know, and for you to assume that you do know (and to
: label any dissent as insane) is rather arrogant.
Inability to answer a question does not answer the question.
The necessary existence of that which is by definition the answer
to the question,answers the question.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:40:16 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>: wrote:
>:>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:45:19 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>hanso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>:>: On Oct 11, 1:59?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>:>:>:> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>:>:> : On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>:
>: <snip>
>:
>:>:>Logic defines God as the ultimate reason the universe came into being.
>:>:>The terra incognita can not be nonexistent if the existence of any
>:>:>terra cognita is to be explained.
>:
>:>:>You can know nothing about God,but you can't defend a position that
>:>:>anything could exist unless there were that unknown God.
>:
>:>: Not even the eternally expanding and contracting universe??
>:
>:>That can only be explained by there being a God wanting it to happen.
>:
>: Not at all. Something that has always existed has no need of 'first
>: cause'.
>
>There must be a reason it "has always existed".
Really? So who created god?
>: In fact that isn't true. You seem to consider 'god' to be a sentient
>: being whereas the concept of an eternal unthinking universe governed
>: solely by the laws of physics is far easier to accept than the eternal
>: existence of a being who developed fully formed and conscious!!
>I don't know that the Infinitely First Cause is "personal" in nature
>at all...only that it transcends all it has caused.Physical AND
>metaphysical.
Welshdog
Welsh Dog
No reason why... it just *is*! There's far more evidence to support a
steady state of ongoing expansion and contraction that to support the
notion of a god.
There may be a god... I sincerely hope so... but I have *no* reason to
assume it would be more interested in this small part of the universe
than any other... and the possibility of an 'after life' is so slim as
to be hardly worth considering. Makes no sense to keep just human
consciousness eternally... what about the other animals?
Just because Genesis says we're different (having the breath of life
blown into us) doesn't make it so. It's just someone's answer to
questions they didn't understand!
On the other hand of course... if it *is* there I'd like to be in it!!
:D
Welsh Dog
wrote:
You still don;t see it do you? If there is *one* sentient being
controlling this universe as the omnipotent one... it almost cries out
to us to appreciate that there might be other gods and other
universes! It doesn't make 'ours' any less powerful... just that there
could be others of which we can know even less about that ours... and
we know nothing about ours! :D
Louis Epstein
: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:50:34 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
"God" designates ONLY the SOLE cause of ALL things.
If there is a crew of material-universe-makers...
they're therefore not the ULTIMATE UNIQUE Maker-of-All.
Louis Epstein
"It just is" represents an evasion of a question
to which "God" is by definition the answer.
: There may be a god... I sincerely hope so... but I have *no* reason to
: assume it would be more interested in this small part of the universe
: than any other... and the possibility of an 'after life' is so slim as
: to be hardly worth considering. Makes no sense to keep just human
: consciousness eternally... what about the other animals?
:
: Just because Genesis says we're different (having the breath of life
: blown into us) doesn't make it so. It's just someone's answer to
: questions they didn't understand!
Genesis is hardly relevant.
: On the other hand of course... if it *is* there I'd like to be in it!!
: :D
:
: Welshdog
-=-=-
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:50:34 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>: wrote:
>:>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>:>: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:12:15 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:31:41 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>:>:>wrote:
>:>:>>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>:>>: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:42:07 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>:>:>>: wrote:
>:>:>>:>Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>:>>:>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>:>:>>:>: wrote:
>:>:>>:>:>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>:>:>>:>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs" <n...@fractalfairy.com>
>:>:>>:>:>: wrote:
<snip>
>:>Only the Infinitely First Cause,creator of ALL else,is "God".
>:>A subordinate being that you may consider "our god" is irrelevant
>:>compared to THE God.
>: You still don;t see it do you? If there is *one* sentient being
>: controlling this universe as the omnipotent one... it almost cries out
>: to us to appreciate that there might be other gods and other
>: universes! It doesn't make 'ours' any less powerful... just that there
>: could be others of which we can know even less about that ours... and
>: we know nothing about ours! :D
>You're the one who doesn't understand.
>"God" designates ONLY the SOLE cause of ALL things.
>If there is a crew of material-universe-makers...
>they're therefore not the ULTIMATE UNIQUE Maker-of-All.
I understand perfectly... but you are refusing to accept the wider
possibilities.
Toon
wrote:
>>The same really. Why should a universe suddenly be? To keep
>>expanding and to increase that rate? To have laws of physics? To
>>have so many constants that together allow for life on at least one
>>planet? Between magically happening, and some dude wanting it, some
>>dude wins out. At least you get a feel of a purpose, a reason,
>>however unknown it ultimately is. Everything just coincidentally
>>happening is mind boggling.
>
>No reason why... it just *is*! There's far more evidence to support a
>steady state of ongoing expansion and contraction that to support the
>notion of a god.
Yes, but that doesn't support how it came to be. Just happening makes
far less sense than someone wanting it to be, and then subsequently
being in a steady state and constantly expanding. god doesn't
micromanage the universe. he lets a lot of things be self automated.
Like evolution.
>There may be a god... I sincerely hope so... but I have *no* reason to
>assume it would be more interested in this small part of the universe
>than any other... and the possibility of an 'after life' is so slim as
>to be hardly worth considering. Makes no sense to keep just human
>consciousness eternally... what about the other animals?
Either species specific Heavens, or we're all together in one. Anyone
who says humans only is just being species centric, not basing things
off of facts (assuming there is indeed a Heaven).
>Just because Genesis says we're different (having the breath of life
>blown into us) doesn't make it so. It's just someone's answer to
>questions they didn't understand!
god's answers, misunderstood by humans. Sure, he created the Earth
thousands of years ago, god time. Human time it was 4.6 Billion years
ago. Yes, life came from a pile of dirt. Panspirmera show slife
arried in a space rock crashing into the Earth. Too bad humans though
god meant only humans cmae frim a pile of dirt. A ridiculous notion
at best.
Humans have a serious superiority complex. Science shows again and
again many animals, insects, etc, are hugely intelligent, and so many
things we do. Chimps like trading food/drinks for pics of Alpha chimp
butts.
Toon
wrote:
And who says the first cause created all? Maybe firsty created his
own joint. Then created other gods and had them create their own
places. Ours would be on of these gods. Nowhere does it say the
creator of our universe is the penultimate being of everywhere. Our
god created the universe. That's what all religions basically say.
None talk about the beyond in which our universe is expanding in.
There's no reason to think our first cause is every first cause. It's
like denying you have grandparents because all you knew for 3 years is
your mom and dad. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Having parents
doesn't exclude grandparents, nor aunt and uncles.
Toon
wrote:
Especially since " the SOLE cause of ALL things." has only ever
applied to our universe. Who knows what it's like beyond our
Universe. Could be two other gods run things with ours. We don't
know, because all we've ever been told about is our universe. And
ours is supposedly the result of one god. That doesn't preclude multi
gods elsewhere.
"If there is a crew of material-universe-makers...
they're therefore not the ULTIMATE UNIQUE Maker-of-All."
No, that one is probably sitting on a beach somewhere, delegating all
his responsibilities to the universe makers. Probably why that one
created the makers. So he wouldn't have to do anything but be an
architect.
DaveD
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:53:02 +0100, "DaveD"
>>"Welsh Dog" <wels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0sh3f41hvl7jqccgk...@4ax.com...
>>>>: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:56:33 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
>>>>:>: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:51:35 -0500, "BubblyBabs"
>>>><n...@fractalfairy.com>
>
>
>>>>:>No...God is by definition uniquely uncreated.
>
>>>>: If 'god' can be uniquely uncreated... why shouldn't the universe??
>
>>>>Only one entity can be uniquely uncreated
>>>>and constitute the explanation for the
>>>>existence of all others.
>>
>>>>Having this attribute makes that entity God.
>
>>>>So are you saying the Universe IS God?
>
>>> Can you prove it isn't?
>
>>on
>>a definition for what god is, and isn't. I doubt such an agreement will be
>>easy or quickly reached!
>
> definitions are something you think we'd never agree on?? :)
I don't assume this thread has a purpose :) The assertion that the
universe is god depends completely on your definition. If your definition is
that god=universe, then even I'd believe in god because I believe the
universe exists. However, that's definitely not my definition of god, so
therefore I don't believe the universe is god, the universe is the universe.
All rather pointless, I think!
>>>>Because there MUST be a God for there to be ANYTHING.
>
>>> Depends on your perspective! If, as you claim, 'god' was uniquely
>>> created then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have been
>>> uniquely created instead *not* as well!
>
>>> Besides... it is quite within the bounds of logical possibility for a
>>> god to have created this universe with its physical laws and yet,
>>> being outside those laws itself, share existence with a multitude of
>>> other beings we'd consider to be gods... tho maybe not the god of our
>>> universe!!
>
>>Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent existence,
>>deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and
>>eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather than
>>someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo sum":
>>I
>>think therefore I am.
>
>>You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence: the
>>first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsupported
>>assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of
>>an
>>alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.
>
> A logical possibility doesn't require proof... it simply 'is'.
>
> Welshdog
Exactly - a logical possibility is a logical possibility; without proof it
isn't fact.
DaveD
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:10:18 -0500, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com>
You are insisting on describing as possibilities
things excluded by definition.
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:54:18 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
There is no "beyond our Universe" in God terms.
If there is anything a putative god did NOT cause,
that putative god is thereby proven to NOT be God.
: Could be two other gods run things with ours. We don't
: know, because all we've ever been told about is our universe.
And a definition of "universe" that does not include EVERYTHING
is incorrect.
: And ours is supposedly the result of one god. That doesn't preclude
: multi gods elsewhere.
The definition of God precludes there being more than one.
: "If there is a crew of material-universe-makers...
: they're therefore not the ULTIMATE UNIQUE Maker-of-All."
:
: No, that one is probably sitting on a beach somewhere, delegating all
: his responsibilities to the universe makers. Probably why that one
: created the makers. So he wouldn't have to do anything but be an
: architect.
But only "that one" is properly God.
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:55:55 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
But I've said all along...The INFINITELY FIRST CAUSE is God,
no matter how many other creators are on the chain that leads
to us.
: Nowhere does it say the creator of our universe is the penultimate
: being of everywhere.
God isn't next-to-last,which is what "penultimate" means,
God is FIRST.And anyone else along the chain from God to
our existence is secondary,and not God.
: Our god created the universe. That's what all religions basically say.
: None talk about the beyond in which our universe is expanding in.
To the extent that religions fail to grasp the absolute
INFINITY of God,they are incorrect and irrelevant.
: There's no reason to think our first cause is every first cause.
There's no reason to care about any other than the SOLE,INFINITELY
First Cause.
: It's like denying you have grandparents because all you knew for 3
: years is your mom and dad. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Having
: parents doesn't exclude grandparents, nor aunt and uncles.
But your parents,grandparents,great-grandparents,and any finite number
of generations of progenitors are not the answer to the question as to
the ULTIMATE reason for your being.
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:53:34 +1100, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm
A lot more credible (and germane to the ORIGIN of life)
than panspermia.Of course ultimately all comes from God.
: Humans have a serious superiority complex. Science shows again and
: again many animals, insects, etc, are hugely intelligent, and so many
: things we do. Chimps like trading food/drinks for pics of Alpha chimp
: butts.
A species that fails to put itself first will become extinct
and deserve to.
Welsh Dog
And you've narrowed the definition to exclude any possibilities other
than the one you support!! Smacks of the Inquisition methinks!!
Toon
wrote:
Whoa, I totally didn't expect that.
Welsh Dog
Nobody.....
.... expects a reworking of Godwin's law!!
New version:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Monty Python approaches.
DaveD
>>You are insisting on describing as possibilities
>>things excluded by definition.
>
> And you've narrowed the definition to exclude any possibilities other
> than the one you support!! Smacks of the Inquisition methinks!!
>
> Welshdog
Told you it would end up arguing about definitions, lol.
DaveD *looking smug*
Drusilla
> No, that one is probably sitting on a beach somewhere, delegating all
> his responsibilities to the universe makers. Probably why that one
> created the makers. So he wouldn't have to do anything but be an
> architect.
If you spend enough time with architects as I do, you would know they`re
blamed for everything that goes bad inside the house. 'The couple
divorced? Obviously, taht's because the architect didn't manage to get
enough lighting into the house...'