Does God need to prove He exists?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just
details." Albert Einstein
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
raven1
mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
>No. I don't think
<Trimmed for brevity and accuracy>
Enkidu
26aa50...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/index.html disagrees with you.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"The fool says in his heart: 'There is no God.' The Wise Man says it to the
world."
Troy Witte
John Locke
mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
>No. I don't think so.
>
If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
time and effort.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
>
> >No. I don't think so.
>
> If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
> in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
> time and effort.
>
> "It is far better to grasp the Universe
> as it really is than to persist in delusion,
> however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp.
raven1
Who claims that he thought otherwise? Please tell me you can't be
retarded enough to think (or dishonest enough to insinuate) that the
quote you're criticizing indicates anything other than a willingness
to accept evidence, and modify one's world-view accordingly.
John Baker
>No. I don't think
You got *that* right, Sport.
Syd M.
No, I don't think so, asshole.
PDW
John Baker
mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
And you are worse than a fool if you think we actually believe a
fucktard who can't even spell it is a two-time Nobel laureate.
Conspiracy of Doves
Sagan was very much aware of how little he, along with the rest of the
human race, understood about the universe, thank you very much.
The amount he understood was still magnitudes greater than what you
understand.
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
> No. I don't think so.
Does the heavenly sadist jehoover exist at all? I know it does not.
Case closed.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
thomas p.
<mitch.nico...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:9295185b-4d2f-4dea...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Since he did not think that, and since it is the theists who think they know
"The Truth"; you are the fool - as well as a liar.
Don Stockbauer
Does God need to prove He exists?
***************************************
So God is a male?
If you could see Him there'd be a great big set of hairy nuts dangling
down?
Sounds rather unlikely.
panam...@hotmail.com
> No. I don't think so.
Well, not if it isn't a neurotic megalomaniac. Problem is, most human
"god" myths that claim it *is*.
> "I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just
> details." Albert Einstein
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-'childish'.html
> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Yeah, sure. And I'm World Driving Champion.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
LaVir...@aol.com
In order to prove scientifically if [the Biblical] God exists, one
would have to design
virtual model of love as a perfect emotion which demands complete
reciprocation
but which at the same time does not destry the unreciprocating. This
would then
be a model which contains a perpetual and unending ambiguity.
Moreover,
there would need to be an additional model which illustrates the
condiiton of
of altered malleable states of reality, as if what you think is
happening isn't really happening
because everything is malleable and alterable. Besids, being
ambiguous, this model should also be curious in design--that is,
having a remarkable shape to it, like a deep-sea creature would seem
to be "curious"
***********Val
John Smith
<mitch.nico...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9295185b-4d2f-4dea...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
*You are a fool for presuming he thought he ever did.
Don Stockbauer
Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way
out.
Sanforized
The easiest way out of "the God question" is to
ignore it. BTW, that's the only correct approach
anyway. If you don't have an internal moral compass
you're no better than the dirt you came from.
Mark K. Bilbo
> No. I don't think so.
Well, non-existent beings do have such a hard time proving they exist...
Geoff
And then apply Occam's razor and lop off the unnecessary god entities.
Don Martin
Of course not: it is up to the people _claiming_ that such a thing
exists to furnish the evidence. It is a little hard to require
evidence from a non-existent entity--you are likely to have a very
long wait for performance.
Uncle Al
Hey fucking stooopid: Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million
deities. List the ones that don't exist - and why.
The greatest obstacle to reality is not ignorance but the illusion of
knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Antares 531
<johnloc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
>mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>No. I don't think so.
>>
>
>If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
>in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
>time and effort.
>
Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would
never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
own level.
>
>"It is far better to grasp the Universe
>as it really is than to persist in delusion,
>however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>
This is quite true, but closing one's mind against God is NOT grasping
the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the
multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse.
Think infinite fractals...where do they begin and where do they end?
Now, extend this ideogram beyond our temporal reference, into the
eternal temporal reference.
Gordon
Don Stockbauer
> Don Stockbauer wrote:
God and the Universe are identical.
Therefor, SCIENCE = RELIGION
John Locke
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
><johnloc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
>>mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>No. I don't think so.
>>>
>>
>>If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
>>in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
>>time and effort.
>>
>Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
>puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
>puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would
>never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
>own level.
>
The religious have already been reduced to pre-programmed mindless
childish robots just as you describe. Proof of "God's" existence
sure couldn't do that mess any harm.
MarkA
You have no idea how much that one sentence says about *you*.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Rob Brown
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:f07o34t0nshcvssc3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
> <johnloc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
> puppets.
Nonsense, this frequently stated and never supported. Why couldn't I
disobey? Lucifer did in your silly book.
And what does that say about your belief? It would imply to me that either
you are a puppet or your belief is something less than it would be if god
put in an appearance. How much less? You just maybe , sort of, kind of
believe? Could you elaborate?
> We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots.
Why? You asserted now support it.
> We would
> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
> own level.
So, you are on god's level? Just what does that mean? It sounds very
egotistical to me, but then you're the one on God's level in this thread. I
suppose that's reason enough for an inflated ego.
Rob Brown
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> details." Albert Einstein
>
> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Does Mitch need to prove his Nobel Laureate status?
No?
Mitch is God!
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Don Martin
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
>
> >On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
> >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>No. I don't think so.
>
> >If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
> >in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
> >time and effort.
>
> Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
> puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would
> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
> own level.
And how would this state differ in any significant way for believers
who presumably take god's existence as absolutely certain without
objective evidence? Is the exercise of bullshitting oneself for a
lifetime necessary for this growth into "sovereign beings"? It seems
to me that it is only this exercise that would be lost were god to be
demonstrated by actual evidence. If the bullshitting is necessary for
spiritual growth, please provide your evidence for _that_.
SkyEyes
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
>
> >On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
> >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>No. I don't think so.
>
> >If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
> >in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
> >time and effort.
>
> Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
> puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots.
So how about all those folks in the bible that interacted directly
with god or angels? Was Moses a puppet? How about Samuel? According
to scripture, they interacted directly with god. Of all the theists'
arguments for why there's no evidence for god, this is the silliest.
> We would
> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
> own level.
According to theists, god is infinite. Are you proposing that humans
are *ever* going to be able to interact with any god on an infinite
level?
> >"It is far better to grasp the Universe
> >as it really is than to persist in delusion,
> >however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>
> This is quite true, but closing one's mind against God is NOT grasping
> the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the
> multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse.
Evidence, please. Post it here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
> Think infinite fractals...where do they begin and where do they end?
> Now, extend this ideogram beyond our temporal reference, into the
> eternal temporal reference.
And that proves...what, exactly?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
jonas.t...@hotmail.com
> details." Albert Einstein
>
> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Wouldn't the question be, do god know he exist?
A fragmented entity is not in control over creation, it is a battle
until the parts become *ONE*
thomas p.
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:f07o34t0nshcvssc3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
> <johnloc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
>>mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>No. I don't think so.
>>>
>>
>>If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
>>in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
>>time and effort.
>>
> Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
> puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would
> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
> own level.
Or there is no reason to believe in god.
>>
>>"It is far better to grasp the Universe
>>as it really is than to persist in delusion,
>>however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>>
> This is quite true, but closing one's mind against God is NOT grasping
> the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the
> multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse.
So you say. I don't believe you.
>
> Think infinite fractals...where do they begin and where do they end?
> Now, extend this ideogram beyond our temporal reference, into the
> eternal temporal reference.
Think meaningless babble.
>
> Gordon
Aage Andersen
> No. I don't think so.
>
> details." Albert Einstein
>
How can something nonexisting prove it exist?
Aage
hanson
"Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
in message news:483C1DA1...@hate.spam.net...
> mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
"I want to know how God created this universe.
All the rest are just details." Albert Einstein
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
>
Hey fucking stooopid: Hindus have 36 crores of gods -
360 million deities.
>
Hey fucked up idiot: Raemsch is not Indian nor Hindu
but Mitch, the Senn and Alphornblaeser, has apparently
put a collar on you and makes you bark every time
he shows up and spews some crap... like the 2-liner
above from your kin-in-ilk. Consider what your Single
Jew "G-d"... ahahahaha.. has bestowed on your ilk...
Nothing but the ~ 35 times that "G-d" has chosen'em
.. ahahaha.. see here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8aad269a321ff50a
>
The Hindus are blessed compared to you and your ilk.
They have, unlike you, freedom of religion... Everyone
can chose which and what god s/he likes... 36 cores
of choices according to you, compared to your zero
choice..... ahahahahaha... You sound jealous, rect-Al.
Idiot.
Thanks for the laughs though, you Dreidel... ahahaha..
ahaha... ahahahanason
Antares 531
wrote:
>On May 27, 7:41 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
>>
>> <johnlocke98...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
>> >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>No. I don't think so.
>>
>> >If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
>> >in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
>> >time and effort.
>>
>> Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
>> puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
>> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots.
>
>So how about all those folks in the bible that interacted directly
>with god or angels? Was Moses a puppet? How about Samuel? According
>to scripture, they interacted directly with god. Of all the theists'
>arguments for why there's no evidence for god, this is the silliest.
>
Moses and the others who interacted directly with God had already
progressed to the point that their alignment with God was fully
volitional. Nothing changed, once they began interacting with God in a
more complete manner. Most of us aren't at that level, yet, and would
therefore become mere puppets that hadn't yet had the opportunity to
make their own sovereign choices.
>> We would
>> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
>> own level.
>
>According to theists, god is infinite. Are you proposing that humans
>are *ever* going to be able to interact with any god on an infinite
>level?
>
Not as mortal humans, but there is more to our existence than this
very brief period of mortality. We should progress on up the ramp
until we eventually are at or very near God's own level.
>
>> >"It is far better to grasp the Universe
>> >as it really is than to persist in delusion,
>> >however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>>
>> This is quite true, but closing one's mind against God is NOT grasping
>> the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the
>> multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse.
>
>Evidence, please. Post it here:
>
As I pointed out in the preceding post, if there were objective proof
we would be intimidated into compliance and our option of exercising
our sovereign will would be kaput! On the other hand, evidence
abounds! Just examine SSM theory if you want some. The SSM multiverses
with at least one dimension rolled up to less than a Planck length is
very congruent with the Bible's seven levels of heaven, rolled up like
a scroll. But, empirically proving SSM or the Bible is not likely to
ever be an option for any of us.
Antares 531
We believers have already made our sovereign choice to go with God, so
our compliance is not by intimidation.
Free Lunch
So, you would do that even if there were absolutely no threat of hell
nor promise of heaven?
Free Lunch
Another boring excuse for the total lack of evidence for God.
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:27:26 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
(snip)
>>>> >"It is far better to grasp the Universe
>>>> >as it really is than to persist in delusion,
>>>> >however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>>>>
>>>> This is quite true, but closing one's mind against God is NOT grasping
>>>> the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the
>>>> multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse.
>>>
>>>Evidence, please. Post it here:
>>>
>>As I pointed out in the preceding post, if there were objective proof
>>we would be intimidated into compliance and our option of exercising
>>our sovereign will would be kaput! On the other hand, evidence
>>abounds! Just examine SSM theory if you want some. The SSM multiverses
>>with at least one dimension rolled up to less than a Planck length is
>>very congruent with the Bible's seven levels of heaven, rolled up like
>>a scroll. But, empirically proving SSM or the Bible is not likely to
>>ever be an option for any of us.
>
>Another boring excuse for the total lack of evidence for God.
>
But, it leaves you in a position where you can make your own sovereign
choice, and not be whipped into compliance, so to speak.
Gordon
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
I have. There is no evidence for gods so I ignore them.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
Mitch Raemsch
Spaceman
news:6aa4bca6-3b71-4003...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'.
So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness.
ROFLOL!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On May 27, 12:29 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 8:24 pm, John Locke <johnlocke98...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > > mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >No. I don't think so.
>
> > > If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith
> > > in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
> > > time and effort.
>
> > > as it really is than to persist in delusion,
> > > however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>
>
> human race, understood about the universe, thank you very much.
>
> The amount he understood was still magnitudes greater than what you
> understand.- Hide quoted text -
Since what he understood most was gabbering about thermodynamics
crap,
,that's mostly why people who do understand the universe worked on
robots and lasers, rather than swamps.
Free Lunch
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
><mitch.nico...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6aa4bca6-3b71-4003...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
>
>Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'.
>So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness.
>ROFLOL!
Does the universe have net energy?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman"
>
> ><mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:6aa4bca6-3b71-4003...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
>
> >Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'.
> >So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness.
> >ROFLOL!
>
> Does the universe have net energy?
Stars can be recreated. The Sun will be in 5 billion years.
Spaceman
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:30ep345hp9qkvho7a...@4ax.com...
Sure it does, it has an infinite amount.
At least that is what I would call it until we actually find the 'true edge'
by traveling there and see a bunch of 'nothing' outside it.
It goes through its own little cycles forever.
It was never created because all the stuff is always there.
Can you destroy an electron?
Or did you just smash it into small enough parts that you can't see
them anymore.
If glass is smashed, can you gather what is smashed and make new glass
(some will be missing)
The universe is the largest recycling system there is.
Massive Black holes collide and start a new Universe.
It is a big crash of stuff that was there already, not a big bang to
create stuff out of nothing
:)
Free Lunch
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:30ep345hp9qkvho7a...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman"
>> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>>
>> ><mitch.nico...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:6aa4bca6-3b71-4003...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >>There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
>> >
>> >Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'.
>> >So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness.
>> >ROFLOL!
>>
>> Does the universe have net energy?
>
>Sure it does, it has an infinite amount.
No evidence supports that claim. Some evidence supports the hypothesis
that the universe has no net energy.
Spaceman
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:04:49 -0400, "Spaceman"
> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
> >Sure it does, it has an infinite amount.
>
> No evidence supports that claim. Some evidence supports the hypothesis
> that the universe has no net energy.
Net energy is silly anyways.
No evidence proves it wrong either.
:)
How much energy is needed to hold a pebble on the ground?
How much energy is needed to hold the oceans to the Earth.
How much energy is needed to hold the Earth in orbit around the Sun
Sun - Galaxy
Etc..
where does the "non net energy" end?
:)
Liz
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman"
Indeterminate at the present time. Albeit, if the universe's
expansion rate continues to accelerate, this means that dark energy is
adding a net positive energy over gravity's negative energy. If the
universe's expansion continues but decelerates approaching a fixed
rate, this means that the positive energy in the universe and the
negative energy of gravity are equal. If the negative energy of
gravity predominates, it stops the expansion of the universe and
starts contracting.
So far it appears that the expansion rate is accelerating and there is
more dark energy in the universe than originally estimated.
I really hope the answer is discovered in my lifetime because I find
the question fascinating.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Exactly. Fuck humans, they're just cannon fodder for Hell anyway.
God doesn't owe them jackshit.
Spaceman
news:csfp3454pfo3ejd92...@4ax.com...
> Indeterminate at the present time. Albeit, if the universe's
> expansion rate continues to accelerate, this means that dark energy is
> adding a net positive energy over gravity's negative energy. If the
> universe's expansion continues but decelerates approaching a fixed
> rate, this means that the positive energy in the universe and the
> negative energy of gravity are equal. If the negative energy of
> gravity predominates, it stops the expansion of the universe and
> starts contracting.
>
> So far it appears that the expansion rate is accelerating and there is
> more dark energy in the universe than originally estimated.
>
> I really hope the answer is discovered in my lifetime because I find
> the question fascinating.
Warning: Crazy spaceshit thoughts yet again,
It will stop expanding when every single collision that is occuring in
the universe stops.
These collisions are what create dark matter/dark energy.
the dark matter is filling up the Universe Balloon because simply
they are broken puzzle pieces without anybody making the puzzle
again, they are smashed up shards that need more room than
they did when they were stuck together.
:)
When it will stop? who knows.. maybe never,
It might even start again when two large puzzles (black holes)
crash into each other. (again in my book of thoughts)
But I agree, It would be great to find out such in our lifetime.
Spaceman
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:35ad89aa-1d65-477a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>Exactly. Fuck humans, they're just cannon fodder for Hell anyway.
>God doesn't owe them jackshit.
Yup,
Stupid bags of mostly water they are..
LOL
raven1
You're a tad confused here. In five billion years, the Sun will expand
into a "red giant", and eventually cool down to a "white dwarf", which
will last for additional billions of years. "Rebirth" isn't part of
the cycle.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
raven? God won't let mankind die. Its as simple as that.
Mitch Raemsch
Christ's Love
That's right. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal
life in Christ Jesus.
Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!
Free Lunch
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Santolina chamaecyparissus
><sant...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 7:20 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> No. I don't think so.
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. Fuck humans, they're just cannon fodder for Hell anyway.
>>God doesn't owe them jackshit.
>
>That's right. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal
>life in Christ Jesus.
No evidence supports those claims.
raven1
That's a religious opinion, which is completely irrelevant to the life
cycle of a star, which is a topic that is well understood.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:10:11 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 7:04 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT),
>
> >> mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >On May 27, 5:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman"
>
> >> >> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
> >> >> ><mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:6aa4bca6-3b71-4003...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
>
> >> >> >Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'.
> >> >> >So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness.
> >> >> >ROFLOL!
>
> >> >> Does the universe have net energy?
>
> >> >Stars can be recreated. The Sun will be in 5 billion years.
>
> >> You're a tad confused here. In five billion years, the Sun will expand
> >> into a "red giant", and eventually cool down to a "white dwarf", which
> >> will last for additional billions of years. "Rebirth" isn't part of
> >> the cycle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >raven? God won't let mankind die. Its as simple as that.
>
> That's a religious opinion, which is completely irrelevant to the life
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't deal in opinion.
Science doesn't understand much. Why do you suspect that if science in
a cosmic sense has barely began? Give it a million years and ask it
then.
Smiler
"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1991cd7d-dbb8-428f...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
> Don Stockbauer wrote:
>
> > LaVirtu...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >>On May 27, 1:20?am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Does God need to prove He exists?
>
> >>>***************************************
>
> >>>So God is a male?
>
> >>>If you could see Him there'd be a great big set of hairy nuts dangling
> >>>down?
>
> >>>>Sounds rather unlikely.
>
> >>In order to prove scientifically if [the Biblical] God exists, one
> >>would have to design
> >>virtual model of love as a perfect emotion which demands complete
> >>reciprocation
> >>but which at the same time does not destry the unreciprocating. This
> >>would then
> >>be a model which contains a perpetual and unending ambiguity.
> >>Moreover,
> >>there would need to be an additional model which illustrates the
> >>condiiton of
> >>of altered malleable states of reality, as if what you think is
> >>happening isn't really happening
> >>because everything is malleable and alterable. Besids, being
> >>ambiguous, this model should also be curious in design--that is,
> >>having a remarkable shape to it, like a deep-sea creature would seem
> >>to be "curious"
>
> >>***********Val
>
> > Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way
> > out.
>
> The easiest way out of "the God question" is to
> ignore it. BTW, that's the only correct approach
> anyway. If you don't have an internal moral compass
> you're no better than the dirt you came from.
God and the Universe are identical.
Therefor, SCIENCE = RELIGION
------------------------------------------------
Your scientific evidence for this bullshit is....?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
raven1
Yet you present yours as fact.
>Science doesn't understand much.
Science is a process of discovery. Thanks to its effectiveness,
scientists understand much more than you might think. Try doing a bit
of research; you might be surprised at what we actually know quite a
bit about.
> Why do you suspect that if science in
>a cosmic sense has barely began?
The above sentence makes no sense in English.
> Give it a million years and ask it
>then.
Of course we'll know more in a million years than we know now. But
even a million years of discovery is unlikely to overturn our current
understanding of stellar evolution for stars the size of our Sun,
(rather than adding to it), any more than f = ma or e = mc^2 is likely
to be superceded by future discoveries.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:58 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years.
Mitch Raemsch
hhya...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Santolina chamaecyparissus
>
> >On May 26, 7:20 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> No. I don't think so.
>
> >Exactly. Fuck humans, they're just cannon fodder for Hell anyway.
> >God doesn't owe them jackshit.
>
> That's right. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal
> life in Christ Jesus.
>
> Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!
Unrealizable illusion for mankind.
hhya...@gmail.com
Why are we progressing from caveman to digital world ?
You have no idea, right?
thomas p.
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:b49p34d4sj36gkvv5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:17:33 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 27, 7:41 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
>>Evidence, please. Post it here:
>>
> As I pointed out in the preceding post, if there were objective proof
> we would be intimidated into compliance and our option of exercising
> our sovereign will would be kaput!
No evidence, no reason to believe in any god. No evidence, all of your
explanations are your fantasies.
thomas p.
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:31:40 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin
>
>>On May 27, 10:41 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
>>>
>>> >in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
>>> >time and effort.
>>>
>>> puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
>>> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would
>>> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
>>> own level.
>>
>>And how would this state differ in any significant way for believers
>>who presumably take god's existence as absolutely certain without
>>objective evidence? Is the exercise of bullshitting oneself for a
>>lifetime necessary for this growth into "sovereign beings"? It seems
>>to me that it is only this exercise that would be lost were god to be
>>demonstrated by actual evidence. If the bullshitting is necessary for
>>spiritual growth, please provide your evidence for _that_.
>>
> We believers have already made our sovereign choice to go with God, so
> our compliance is not by intimidation.
Of course not, how could one be intimidated by a fantasy? Rational people
do not "choose" to believe anything. There is no objective reason to
believe in a god and certainly none to believe in your explanations.
caveat
OMG, when will this crap ever end???
If God does exist then those who believe and follow the laws that we think
he/she/it wrote for us might go to heaven and those who don't won't.
O.K. fair enough.
However, having a debate over an idea that can not be proven one way or the
other is simply stupid.
We as humans don't have proof one way or the other so it is all simply about
belief.
The bible is NOT proof! It is a book like any other, fiction or fact,
written by the hand of man and susceptible to all the shortcomings of the
human race. And, don't give me any fictional crap about it being written by
God through the hand of man. I could just as easily say that creatures from
Mars, millions of years ago, set in motion the basis for human evolution and
it's true because my best friends' half-brothers' mothers' aunt said so. It
would be no more or less proof than your proof of the bible being true.
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a higher power, I'm simply saying
that it is a very weak defense to use, as proof, something that is only
credible if you believe one side over the other.
What is the goal of this debate anyway?
It almost sounds like two kids saying, (a) you're stupid, (b) no, you're
stupid, (a) no, you're stupid, (b) no, you're stupid, (a) no, you're stupid,
(b) no, you're stupid, (a) no, you're stupid, (b) no, you're stupid, etc.
...
If you don't believe then, well ... O.K.
If you do believe then, well ... O.K.
Beyond this, what is the point?
LaVir...@aol.com
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:cokp34hfanc5r5q24...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Originally, the idea of "needing to prove" in this subject line
interests me. I think that's really what will make this forever a
cutting edge topic.
You know, needing to be proved [as a requirement for existing at all]
is one thing, and havng a desire --that is the key--"desire", as an
emotion-- for unproved total acceptance is another. This is to say,
the whole idea is that what would have been obviously true at the
beginning of, say, Genesis, managed to become less true to all people
by their own choice. Having a choice
makes the difference. What it means that "God" in the Biblical
description wants organic naturalness without proof, which, by means
of deft logic would have imply some caveat and therefore be less
total.
*************Val
LaVir...@aol.com
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke
>
> <johnlocke98...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT),
> >in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of
> >time and effort.
>
> Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but
> puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to
> puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would
> never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His
> own level.
>
> >as it really is than to persist in delusion,
> >however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
>
> the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the
> multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse.
>
> Think infinite fractals...where do they begin and where do they end?
> Now, extend this ideogram beyond our temporal reference, into the
> eternal temporal reference.
>
> Gordon
Even more impressive, half of everything created [as in Bible] in non-
angular equivalents of fractals, these taken for granted in the
popular view, with more and more angularity seeming to be desired over
time. If it's soft and smooth, it isn't an act of will. That is to
say, it might be confusing for someone who associates power with
hardness to embrace a concept that "God" [the Biblical one] might
possibly be "soft or smooth".
**************Val
John Baker
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>As I pointed out in the preceding post, if there were objective proof
>we would be intimidated into compliance and our option of exercising
>our sovereign will would be kaput!
If God is omniscient, you have no "sovereign will" anyway.
>On the other hand, evidence
>abounds! Just examine SSM theory if you want some. The SSM multiverses
>with at least one dimension rolled up to less than a Planck length is
>very congruent with the Bible's seven levels of heaven, rolled up like
>a scroll. But, empirically proving SSM or the Bible is not likely to
>ever be an option for any of us.
Son, if you stretch that any further, it's going to break. <G>
John Baker
You don't deal in reality either.
>Science doesn't understand much.
Science doesn't understand anything. But scientists do.
>Why do you suspect that if science in
>a cosmic sense has barely began? Give it a million years and ask it
>then.
>
>Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Odd that the folks who hand out the prizes never heard of you,
then....
John Smith
Lame excuse, with no factual support.
I could just as easily say "god is a salt-shaker".
raven1
Try re-reading the above again, this time, for comprehension.
Geoff
Except that the Universe is directly observable.
Geoff
> raven? God won't let mankind die. Its as simple as that.
Hate to break it to you, but humans will be long gone before that.
Geoff
> Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years.
Religion claims to know everything. It has been shown to be wrong
innumerable times.
Geoff
>> Does the universe have net energy?
>
> Sure it does, it has an infinite amount.
Wrong.
> At least that is what I would call it until we actually find the
> 'true edge' by traveling there and see a bunch of 'nothing' outside
> it.
> It goes through its own little cycles forever.
> It was never created because all the stuff is always there.
> Can you destroy an electron?
> Or did you just smash it into small enough parts that you can't see
> them anymore.
> If glass is smashed, can you gather what is smashed and make new glass
> (some will be missing)
> The universe is the largest recycling system there is.
> Massive Black holes collide and start a new Universe.
> It is a big crash of stuff that was there already, not a big bang to
> create stuff out of nothing
> :)
Wronger than wrong.
Geoff
> Warning: Crazy spaceshit thoughts yet again,
Got that right.
> It will stop expanding when every single collision that is occuring in
> the universe stops.
> These collisions are what create dark matter/dark energy.
> the dark matter is filling up the Universe Balloon because simply
> they are broken puzzle pieces without anybody making the puzzle
> again, they are smashed up shards that need more room than
> they did when they were stuck together.
A better explanation for the Universe than the above is that it's
turtles...al the way down.
Spaceman
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:V7-dna_QMJIr46DV...@giganews.com...
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> >> Does the universe have net energy?
> >
> > Sure it does, it has an infinite amount.
>
> Wrong.
Wow,
you truly need to re-think your wrong answer.
LOL
> > At least that is what I would call it until we actually find the
> > 'true edge' by traveling there and see a bunch of 'nothing' outside
> > it.
> > It goes through its own little cycles forever.
> > It was never created because all the stuff is always there.
> > Can you destroy an electron?
> > Or did you just smash it into small enough parts that you can't see
> > them anymore.
> > If glass is smashed, can you gather what is smashed and make new glass
> > (some will be missing)
> > The universe is the largest recycling system there is.
> > Massive Black holes collide and start a new Universe.
> > It is a big crash of stuff that was there already, not a big bang to
> > create stuff out of nothing
> > :)
>
> Wronger than wrong.
Only in your brainwashed mind.
Stuck in the box is your problem, not mine.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Spaceman
Except, turtles are big enough to see,
now if you had said turtles that are 1 millionth the size of a photon
then you might have a chance.
LOL
Antares 531
wrote:
>Smiler wrote:
>> "Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1991cd7d-dbb8-428f...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
(snip)
>>
>> God and the Universe are identical.
>
>Except that the Universe is directly observable.
>
Not at the Planck level! Have you figured out a means for observing
those extra dimensions that SSM Theory posits?
Gordon
Spaceman
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:cu3r34lsfuoslbn62...@4ax.com...
Extra dimensions are a big infection, not a cure.
Planck limits are also an infection.
Antares 531
wrote:
Quite the contrary, religion acknowledges that there is an infinitude
of information that we don't understand..."for now we see through a
glass, darkly." But, in the next life we will see it all, very
clearly. This is why our current acceptance is based upon faith,
instead of knowledge.
Gordon
G=EMC^2 Glazier
me that say otherwise. Best to keep in mind they find all the answers in
that corrupt book called their "bible" If humankind could find a way to
kill off these Gods it would have time to survive. Go figure Bert
Andres64
> No. I don't think so.
1) assuming your conclusion
2) to which god are you referring?
3) your opinion is irrelevant
...snip...
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 11:46:36 -0400, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years.
>
> >Religion claims to know everything. It has been shown to be wrong
> >innumerable times.
>
> Quite the contrary, religion acknowledges that there is an infinitude
> of information that we don't understand..."for now we see through a
> glass, darkly." But, in the next life we will see it all, very
> clearly. This is why our current acceptance is based upon faith,
> instead of knowledge.
>
> Gordon
God does not exist in the same way that physical objects exist.
Mitch Raemsch
William Wingstedt
>No. I don't think so.
Neither do I. Existing would suffice as the proof.
>
>"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just
>details." Albert Einstein
Syd
And we've seen evidence of what they do when their claims are shown to
be false.
Still got blood on the walls.
PDW
SkyEyes
Exactly. God exists only as a fictional character in the minds of
humans.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Smiler
"caveat" <caveat...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:i87%j.130$RD5...@newsfe11.phx...
Ask the theists who rudely barge their way into atheist groups to argue the
point.
They come here, insisting that their god(s) exists, without having the
intelligence to understand that that concept is meaningless to atheists.
Just as devils, demons, spirits, souls, heavens, hells, and their 'holy'
books are all meaningless nonsense. Their beliefs are no more real than the
belief in Leprechauns, Fairies or Santa Claus to us.
We do have a few polite and moderate theists here who accept our lack of
beliefs (without accepting them themselves), but most theists do not. We do
welcome those who engage in polite discussion, without attempting to force
their beliefs on us.
OTOH, those that rudely, pig-ignorantly and obnoxiously try to force their
beliefs onto us get the treatment they deserve.
We realise that we will never change their beliefs, and that isn't what we
want to do, but we may change their behaviour towards us.
They, however, come here with the explicit purpose of changing our lack of
belief without knowing or caring what our lack of belief is based on and why
we don't believe. This is the equivalent of a group of atheists barging into
a church to disrupt their Sunday services and to try to 'deconvert' the
congregation.
So the goal is to get them to leave us alone, go away and preach to those
who may appreciate it, for we certainly don't.
To most atheists, religion is fine if kept within the home and church. It's
when the religious try to force their religion (through the law, education
system and on this NG) on others that we object.
If you can get the rude theists to accept that not believing is OK, "You're
a better man than I, Gungadin."
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Free Lunch
>On May 27, 7:52 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:10:11 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >On May 27, 7:04 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>> >> mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >On May 27, 5:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman"
>>
>> >> >> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>> >> >> ><mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:6aa4bca6-3b71-4003...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >>There was a beginning to the universe but no before.
>>
>> >> >> >Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'.
>> >> >> >So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness.
>> >> >> >ROFLOL!
>>
>> >> >> Does the universe have net energy?
>>
>> >> >Stars can be recreated. The Sun will be in 5 billion years.
>>
>> >> You're a tad confused here. In five billion years, the Sun will expand
>> >> into a "red giant", and eventually cool down to a "white dwarf", which
>> >> will last for additional billions of years. "Rebirth" isn't part of
>> >> the cycle.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >raven? God won't let mankind die. Its as simple as that.
>>
>> That's a religious opinion, which is completely irrelevant to the life
>> cycle of a star, which is a topic that is well understood.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I don't deal in opinion.
>Science doesn't understand much. Why do you suspect that if science in
>a cosmic sense has barely began? Give it a million years and ask it
>then.
You haven't even tried to work with evidence. Are you at all familiar
with the concept?
Free Lunch
mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote:
>On May 27, 9:39 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:58 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you present yours as fact.
>>
>> >Science doesn't understand much.
>>
>> Science is a process of discovery. Thanks to its effectiveness,
>> scientists understand much more than you might think. Try doing a bit
>> of research; you might be surprised at what we actually know quite a
>> bit about.
>>
>> > Why do you suspect that if science in
>> >a cosmic sense has barely began?
>>
>> The above sentence makes no sense in English.
>>
>> > Give it a million years and ask it
>> >then.
>>
>> Of course we'll know more in a million years than we know now. But
>> even a million years of discovery is unlikely to overturn our current
>> understanding of stellar evolution for stars the size of our Sun,
>> (rather than adding to it), any more than f = ma or e = mc^2 is likely
>> to be superceded by future discoveries.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years.
What a silly statement. Are you under the impression that you actually
know something that science does not know, even though you have
demonstrated your ignorance here?
Free Lunch
wrote:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:cokp34hfanc5r5q24...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 03:16:26 GMT, Christ's Love <christ...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Santolina chamaecyparissus
>>><sant...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 26, 7:20 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> No. I don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. Fuck humans, they're just cannon fodder for Hell anyway.
>>>>God doesn't owe them jackshit.
>>>
>>>That's right. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal
>>>life in Christ Jesus.
>>
>> No evidence supports those claims.
>>
>>>Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of
>>>you!
>
>OMG, when will this crap ever end???
>
>If God does exist then those who believe and follow the laws that we think
>he/she/it wrote for us might go to heaven and those who don't won't.
>O.K. fair enough.
>
>However, having a debate over an idea that can not be proven one way or the
>other is simply stupid.
Not nearly as stupid as equating a belief in an unsubstantiated claim to
scepticism about it.
>We as humans don't have proof one way or the other so it is all simply about
>belief.
No, it is not. I don't have to believe anything in order not to believe
in any gods.
>The bible is NOT proof! It is a book like any other, fiction or fact,
>written by the hand of man and susceptible to all the shortcomings of the
>human race. And, don't give me any fictional crap about it being written by
>God through the hand of man. I could just as easily say that creatures from
>Mars, millions of years ago, set in motion the basis for human evolution and
>it's true because my best friends' half-brothers' mothers' aunt said so. It
>would be no more or less proof than your proof of the bible being true.
>
>I'm not saying that I don't believe in a higher power, I'm simply saying
>that it is a very weak defense to use, as proof, something that is only
>credible if you believe one side over the other.
>
>What is the goal of this debate anyway?
>It almost sounds like two kids saying, (a) you're stupid, (b) no, you're
>stupid, (a) no, you're stupid, (b) no, you're stupid, (a) no, you're stupid,
>(b) no, you're stupid, (a) no, you're stupid, (b) no, you're stupid, etc.
>...
>
>If you don't believe then, well ... O.K.
>If you do believe then, well ... O.K.
>
>Beyond this, what is the point?
Why do you defend the theists intentional refusal to look at evidence?
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:49:40 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:42:02 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
(snip)
>>>Another boring excuse for the total lack of evidence for God.
>>>
>>But, it leaves you in a position where you can make your own sovereign
>>choice, and not be whipped into compliance, so to speak.
>
>I have. There is no evidence for gods so I ignore them.
>
There is no evidence of life on any other planet within this universe.
Do you ignore this possibility, also? If so, does the fact that you
ignore the possibility of life on another planet make it true that
life does not exist on any other planet?
Gordon
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> "caveat" <caveat-lec...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:i87%j.130$RD5...@newsfe11.phx...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >news:cokp34hfanc5r5q24...@4ax.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have to know what a god is to deny the concept smiler.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Santolina chamaecyparissus
> <sant...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 26, 7:20 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> No. I don't think so.
> >>
> >
> >Exactly. Fuck humans, they're just cannon fodder for Hell anyway.
> >God doesn't owe them jackshit.
>
> That's right. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal
> life in Christ Jesus.
>
Didn't that get more than a few priests in trouble?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
politics; n, from the Greek 'poly' meaning many and 'ticks', small
annoying blood suckers.
Free Lunch
wrote:
It's definitely heterodox Christianity, though.
Free Lunch
No evidence supports those mythic claims.
Smiler
<mitch.nico...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f861694-6cff-47fd...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yawn. The usual theist canard...believing is seeing. Yawn.
Do you deny the concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Do you know what that is?
<waits while he goes to Wiki to find out>
There is NO objective evidence for the existence of any god(s)
That would be exactly the same amount of evidence one would expect to find
if no god(s) existed.
If you can provide objective evidence for the existence of any god(s), then
I will willingly consider it.
As there has been no such evidence EVER produced, I doubt if you can produce
it, but I'm willing to give you the opportunity to do so.
If you cannot produce it, then the concept will still be meaningless to me
and your continued posting will be just as unwelcome as it is now.
IOW Put up or shut up.
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:59:37 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:49:40 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:42:02 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>>>Another boring excuse for the total lack of evidence for God.
>>>>
>>>But, it leaves you in a position where you can make your own sovereign
>>>choice, and not be whipped into compliance, so to speak.
>>
>>I have. There is no evidence for gods so I ignore them.
>>
>There is no evidence of life on any other planet within this universe.
That might be a useful observation if we had actually surveyed a number
of planets.
rbwinn
> "caveat" <caveat-lec...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:i87%j.130$RD5...@newsfe11.phx...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >news:cokp34hfanc5r5q24...@4ax.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
So what you are saying, If Jesus Christ returns the way He said He
would, you are going to be upset at Him.
Robert B. Winn