Outer space observations vs. God
david ford
outer space should be able to see him.
A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
reported seeing God.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com>:
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
Why?
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
When are you going to stop trolling?
AC
Have you lost your mind, David?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
John Popelish
>
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
Why do you say that? Are you presuming certain observable properties
for this hypothetical god?
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Before you can test the existence of the hypothetical god, you have to
make a reasonable argument for any assumed properties of the
hypothetical god that are being tested. So far these properties are
just as hypothetical and arbitrary as the assumption that the
hypothetical god exists, in the first place.
--
John Popelish
Grinder
news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
Am I the only one that feels "david ford" is the construction of some
Psychology instructor?
Mark VandeWettering
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
Golly, nonsequitor.
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Can you give an example of someone using this argument?
Mark
Mark Richardson
ford) wrote:
>If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
>outer space should be able to see him.
The God of theism is an idea - you can't see an idea.
>A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>reported seeing God.
>Therefore, God doesn't exist.
God exist - as an idea - not as a space rock.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
<mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:13:43 +0000 (UTC),
>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
>> outer space should be able to see him.
>> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>> reported seeing God.
>> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>
>Have you lost your mind, David?
Years before he began posting to usenet i'll wager.
Maverick
@posting.google.com:
No, but it means that noone has seen God. And I think that is reason enough
not to believe.
Steven J.
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc1ei49.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
cosmonaut, who remarked once that he'd been in outer space and hadn't seen
God. I tend to doubt that this was intended as a serious argument.
Certainly I don't recall seeing it on this forum, nor do I recognize it as
an argument of, e.g. Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan.
>
> Mark
>
-- Steven J.
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>If the Judeo-Christian God of theism
Just the one of theism? Is there also a Judeo-Christian God of
french fries or of model trains? [But of course "theism" also
includes any and all beliefs in any non-Judeo-Christian Gods]
exists, then those traveling to
>outer space should be able to see him.
Why? Isn't he supposed to be equally present on earth? Or is
his visibility supposed to be better in space? Do you know of
anybody else ever making this strange claim of yours?
>A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>reported seeing God.
Maybe they blinked and missed him.
>Therefore, God doesn't exist.
You need to support your premise that he'd be seen in space
if he exists. Or better yet, forget this whole spate of trolling.
cheers
Wakboth
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
Why? Most, if not all, Christians believe that God is omnipresent and
spiritual, not material, and therefore not visible as such. This is
something a three-years old would think.
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
Depends on the definition of "outer space"; when I hear the words, I
think of space beyond Jupiter's orbit, or even interstellar space,
where no human has gone (so far).
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Your argument here was (supposedly) used by the Soviet cosmonauts in
the sixties. It was idiotic and disingenuous then, and it is the same
today.
Besides, I've thought that you were trolling for creationism and God;
what's with these lame-o "atheist" attempts?
-- Wakboth (will we next hear of the pie in the sky?)
Simon Heffer
>Member of S.M.A.S.H.
>(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
Weren't they the aliens with the potato-angst?
Elroy Willis
> Mark Richardson <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote
>> Member of S.M.A.S.H.
>> (Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
> Weren't they the aliens with the potato-angst?
I take it as a reference to Sour Mash.
You, know, that Sour stage of life, where you still have a sense
of humor at the same time, and like to sip on some mash and
make fun of the old people and the young people at the same
time, since you're in the middle at the time.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
howard hershey
He thinks that atheists and agnostics (which are, in his mind, a set
within which evolutionary thinkers are included, despite the fact that
several well-known evolutionary biologists were rather orthodox
Christians) are like creationists and other religious zealots in that
they will agree with (or at minimum, not disagree with) *any* argument,
no matter how trivially ignorant and brain-dead, if the conclusion of
that argument agrees with their personal biases.
So he is tossing out these brain-dead and trivially ignorant
'pro-atheism' arguments to watch the "evil, atheistic evolutionists and
Darwinists" enthusiastically agree with them. He has, I am sure, been
disappointed by the responses, most of which not so politely point out
that the initial premises are, let us say, flawed.
David, s**tty arguments are s**tty arguments. The smell the same no
matter who presents them.
Donald L Ferrt
Wrong = God exists outside the reality of the Universe as such! But
is all powerful and everywhere at once!
Besides the purpose of the Space Thingy is to replace the God of
Religion with the god of Space and Technology! Much like when North
America was being colonized! Much of the propaganda given by people
selling the concept was to ask why wait for an uncertain heaven when
you can have heaven on earth! This site is the ultimate = Zeros
pushing the new god in Science and Technology:
Steve Watson
> In article <b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com>,
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
> >
> >If the Judeo-Christian God of theism
>
> Just the one of theism? Is there also a Judeo-Christian God of
> french fries or of model trains?
Will this do? ;-):
http://www.naisp.net/users/mfischer/m_train6.htm
[snip rest]
-- Steve
neepy
Simon Heffer... aren't you the "journalist" who writes for the Daily Mail?
Ville Ruokonen
"howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bv8gvf$8df$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> He thinks that atheists and agnostics (which are, in his mind, a set
> within which evolutionary thinkers are included, despite the fact that
> several well-known evolutionary biologists were rather orthodox
> Christians) are like creationists and other religious zealots in that
> they will agree with (or at minimum, not disagree with) *any* argument,
> no matter how trivially ignorant and brain-dead, if the conclusion of
> that argument agrees with their personal biases.
>
> So he is tossing out these brain-dead and trivially ignorant
> 'pro-atheism' arguments to watch the "evil, atheistic evolutionists and
> Darwinists" enthusiastically agree with them. He has, I am sure, been
> disappointed by the responses, most of which not so politely point out
> that the initial premises are, let us say, flawed.
I'll use this thought as a metaphorical soapbox, if you don't mind. After
monitoring the newsgroup for some time, I've reached the conclusion that one
of the most convincing arguments for science is the level of rhetoric used
in the debate. Even if I was a total scientific illiterate (I'm a business
major, wink wink), I couldn't think of agreeing with the creationist side.
The level of playground arguments, verbal obfuscation, distortion and
outright lying is staggering, and it's plainly obvious that if one has to
resort to tactics like that to make a point, one hasn't a leg to stand on.
Come on, el creationista, prove me wrong. Construct a polite, un-biased,
factually correct argument and should you be proven wrong, concede the
point. Make me proud!
--
Ville Ruokonen
firstname dot surname at charlie sierra two
dot tango papa uniform dot foxtrot india
Arndt
What is the reason for an atheist to be an atheist?
By being an atheist, the atheist accepts not to have eternal life.
Therefore, he has no reason to intuitively be an atheist. Usually
atheists at a certain stage in their lifes give in to scientific
evidence.
What is the reason for an believer to believe?
By being a believer, the believer buys himself the possibility of
eternal life plus some othre very important human desires. Therefore,
the believer has a very good reason to be a believer.
Now that we have clarified which are the driving forces into atheism
and into belief are, we are able to try to understand how humans,
nature, and the universe works.
Cheers
Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
--- You'll see it when you believe it. Wayne Dyer ---
John Popelish
> I'll use this thought as a metaphorical soapbox, if you don't mind. After
> monitoring the newsgroup for some time, I've reached the conclusion that one
> of the most convincing arguments for science is the level of rhetoric used
> in the debate. Even if I was a total scientific illiterate (I'm a business
> major, wink wink), I couldn't think of agreeing with the creationist side.
> The level of playground arguments, verbal obfuscation, distortion and
> outright lying is staggering, and it's plainly obvious that if one has to
> resort to tactics like that to make a point, one hasn't a leg to stand on.
>
> Come on, el creationista, prove me wrong. Construct a polite, un-biased,
> factually correct argument and should you be proven wrong, concede the
> point. Make me proud!
I hope you are not sitting there, holding your breath.
The calm and reasoned creationist alternatives to scientific
explanations have all been well shot down over the last hundred years
or two. All that remains is desperate flailing and wailing by
believers who think the world will collapse into the black hole of any
conceded point.
It is a sad and pathetic thing to watch.
--
John Popelish
gen2rev
<bd920fe3.04012...@posting.google.com>:
Being neither believer nor atheist, I may be the least qualified person
to comment on this (or perhaps the most qualified), but here goes:
I would suggest that an atheist is an atheist, not because they accept
not to have eternal life, but rather because they see no evidence for
God(s).
A believer who believes because of the desire for eternal life has a
very bad reason for believing. It's quite possible that there is/are
God(s), but this does not automatically mean that there is eternal life.
John Popelish
> What is the reason for an atheist to be an atheist?
It is very simple. Either the atheist has never been indoctrinated
with god stories, or he has, but found then to be unbelievable.
> By being an atheist, the atheist accepts not to have eternal life.
> Therefore, he has no reason to intuitively be an atheist.
I don't desire eternal life.
If you do, please explain what you expect to do with it.
> Usually atheists at a certain stage in their lifes give in to scientific
> evidence.
Accepts as the most likely explanation of reality is a much better
description than 'gives in to'.
> What is the reason for an believer to believe?
> By being a believer, the believer buys himself the possibility of
> eternal life plus some othre very important human desires.
Since when is pretending equivalent to buying yourself anything?
> Therefore, the believer has a very good reason to be a believer.
I accept that people have incentive to believe whatever makes them
fell more safe and comfortable. Organized religions count on it and
profit from it.
Some people can't face reality.
> Now that we have clarified which are the driving forces into atheism
> and into belief are, we are able to try to understand how humans,
> nature, and the universe works.
I trust the self checking and correcting aspects of science and
skepticism more than I trust my own fears and weaknesses.
--
John Popelish
John Popelish
(snip)
> A believer who believes because of the desire for eternal life has a
> very bad reason for believing. It's quite possible that there is/are
> God(s), but this does not automatically mean that there is eternal life.
....or that there is an eternal life but it is some form of a hell. If
gods exist they may turn out to be universally evil by our estimation.
--
John Popelish
Dave
Moses (requesting goat hair and badger skins in one ridiculous story)
or was involved in the other silly Bible stories. Would He create
false evidence and bury it in the earth? You have simply been
worshipping the WRONG god (be very afraid).
Nathan Baum
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
Where in the Bible is this asserted?
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
Have you asked all of them?
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Perhaps he was hiding behind an asteroid?
Seppo Pietikainen
You'd better be prepared for a looooooong wait!
Seppo P.
Bogdan
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:13:43 +0000 (UTC),
>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
>> outer space should be able to see him.
>> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>> reported seeing God.
>> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>Have you lost your mind, David?
Your implication is in error.
Patrick James
(in message <b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com>):
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>
Nice joke, but here's a better one, dating from the about the same time as
yours:
After coming back from the Moon, Neil Armstrong is making a world tour. One
of his stops is at the Vatican.
Quoth His Holiness, the Pope: "My son, I must congratulate you on your
achievement. But there's one thing I have to ask: I listened to all your
reports from the Moon, and I didn't hear whether you saw God or not. Did you
see God?"
Quoth Neil: "Your Holiness, I'm very sorry, but I didn't see anything at all
which might possibly be God."
"Shhh... here's a million dollars, keep that quiet, please."
"Thank you, sir. Thank you very much."
Another stop is the Kremlin.
Quoth Lennie B.: "I must congratulate you on your achievement. If you were
only a Soviet citizen I'd make you a Hero of the Soviet Union. But there's
one thing I have to ask: I listened to all your reports from the Moon, and I
didn't hear whether you saw God or not. Did you see God?"
"Mr. General Secretary, I'm afraid that I did. NASA cut that report out of
the official transcript, they're afraid that they may lose funding if the
more religious people think that we're disturbing God."
"Damn, I was a afraid of that. Look, here's a million dollars, keep this
quiet, okay?"
"Thank you sir, thank you very much."
Yet another stop is Pretoria, South Africa.
Quoth the President of the Republic of South Africa: "I must congratulate you
on your achievement. This is yet another glorious proof that white people are
vastly superior to dark people. But there's one thing I have to ask: I
listened to all your reports from the Moon, and I didn't hear whether you saw
God or not. Did you see God?"
"Sir, I cannot tell a lie. Yes, I did. She's black."
<faints>
Neil just looks at him. "If this damn cheapskate thinks that this is gonna
keep him from coughing up the dough he's got another think coming. One more
million and we're funded all the way through to Apollo 17. Wake up, damn it."
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Richard Forrest
> > outer space should be able to see him.
>
> Why? Most, if not all, Christians believe that God is omnipresent and
> spiritual, not material, and therefore not visible as such. This is
> something a three-years old would think.
But if God is not visible, he wouldn't be seen.
> > A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> > reported seeing God.
Which confirms his existence!
> > Therefore, God doesn't exist.
It's only by seeing God that his non-existence can be proven.
RF
Arndt
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:47:30 +0000 (UTC), amm...@web.de (Arndt) wrote in
> <bd920fe3.04012...@posting.google.com>:
>
> > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<bv8gvf$8df$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > > Wakboth wrote:
> > > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> > What is the reason for an atheist to be an atheist?
> > By being an atheist, the atheist accepts not to have eternal life.
> > Therefore, he has no reason to intuitively be an atheist. Usually
> > atheists at a certain stage in their lifes give in to scientific
> > evidence.
> >
> > What is the reason for an believer to believe?
> > By being a believer, the believer buys himself the possibility of
> > eternal life plus some othre very important human desires. Therefore,
> > the believer has a very good reason to be a believer.
> >
> >
> > Now that we have clarified which are the driving forces into atheism
> > and into belief are, we are able to try to understand how humans,
> > nature, and the universe works.
>
> Being neither believer nor atheist, I may be the least qualified person
> to comment on this (or perhaps the most qualified), but here goes:
>
> I would suggest that an atheist is an atheist, not because they accept
> not to have eternal life, but rather because they see no evidence for
> God(s).
>
> A believer who believes because of the desire for eternal life has a
> very bad reason for believing. It's quite possible that there is/are
> God(s), but this does not automatically mean that there is eternal life.
>
> > Cheers
> > Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
> >
> > --- You'll see it when you believe it. Wayne Dyer ---
I am sorry, but I think that I was not clear in my statement. I have
to admit, that it often is not easy to follow my reasoning. My
reasoning is often "unconventional". When dealing with complex
systems, normal "human" reasoning often follows the exact oposite
direction compared to "logical" reasoning.
Regarding the atheist, I wanted to point out, that when the atheist
became an atheist he was usually not driven by an emotional desire.
The contrary might be true, because becoming an atheist hurts some
basic emotions!
Therefore, an atheist usually is quite unbiased.
The believer on the other hand HAS an emotional desire to belief in
something supernatural. He gets quite a reward for his belief.
Therefore, a believer will usually defend his belief even against
obvious reasons. A believer will usually be biased.
My two statements proof nothing, but they set the picture:
ATHEIST = has no advantage of being an atheist
BELIEVER = has an advantage of being a believer
Regards
Arndt --- www.BraiTrix.com ---
PS: May I ask what your are, if you are between an atheist and a
believer ?
My definition of a believer is that he believes in supernatural
forces. The atheist does not. For me there is no in-between.
david ford
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> >>If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> >>outer space should be able to see him.
> >
> > Why? Most, if not all, Christians believe that God is omnipresent and
> > spiritual, not material, and therefore not visible as such. This is
> > something a three-years old would think.
> >
> >>A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> >>reported seeing God.
> >
> > Depends on the definition of "outer space"; when I hear the words, I
> > think of space beyond Jupiter's orbit, or even interstellar space,
> > where no human has gone (so far).
> >
> >>Therefore, God doesn't exist.
> >
> > Your argument here was (supposedly) used by the Soviet cosmonauts in
> > the sixties. It was idiotic and disingenuous then, and it is the same
> > today.
> >
> > Besides, I've thought that you were trolling for creationism and God;
> > what's with these lame-o "atheist" attempts?
>
> He thinks that atheists and agnostics (which are, in his mind, a set
> within which evolutionary thinkers are included, despite the fact that
> several well-known evolutionary biologists were rather orthodox
> Christians)
Examples, please.
> are like creationists and other religious zealots in that
> they will agree with (or at minimum, not disagree with) *any* argument,
> no matter how trivially ignorant and brain-dead, if the conclusion of
> that argument agrees with their personal biases.
>
> So he is tossing out these brain-dead and trivially ignorant
> 'pro-atheism' arguments to watch the "evil, atheistic evolutionists and
> Darwinists" enthusiastically agree with them. He has, I am sure, been
> disappointed by the responses, most of which not so politely point out
> that the initial premises are, let us say, flawed.
I am glad to hear you say it.
Many pro-"evolution" arguments, e.g. Gould's argument involving the
panda's thumb, are premised on flawed views of what the God of theism
would and wouldn't create.
duke
>If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
>outer space should be able to see him.
>A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>reported seeing God.
>Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Therefore david ford doesn't exist either. As far as I know, not one astronaut
reported seeing david ford.
Simon Heffer
No, I can't spell Inkorrygable.
GRGaud
>
> No, I can't spell Inkorrygable.
[gr] Then permit me to hep you, it's spelled
I-n-k-o-r-r-y-g-e-a-b-l-e.
You were so close, you only needed to add an "e" after the "g". :-)
--
<grgaud at sympatico dot ca>
<http://grgaud.exchristian.info.>
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
Theodosius Dobzhansky (you can't get more orthodox than Orthodox).
Francisco Ayala and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (better known for his
philosophical writings, but a trained palentologist). But perhaps like
Orthodox Christians, Catholic priests don't count as orthodox Christians
in your world.
Or if, perhaps the falsification of the Biblical account of the Flood
would be sufficient, rather than 'evolution' per se. If so, then we
would have to start with Steno, who countered the idea that seashells on
mountaintops were a consequence of the Big Flood, and procede from that
point. Atheists and heretics tend not to be beatified by the Catholic
Church. After all, it isn't just biology that Fundamentalists oppose.
There is Asa Gray (a rather well-known botonist and early supporter of
Darwin in the U.S.)
"The first American Darwinian, Harvard botanist Asa Gray, was also an
outspoken defender of the "compatibility"-that was the word he chose-of
evolution and a very traditional type of Christian theism. Addressing
the student body of the Yale Divinity School in 1880, he identified "the
essential contents of that Christianity which is in my view as
compatible with my evolutionary conceptions as with former scientific
beliefs," as being "briefly summed up" in the Apostles' and Nicene
Creeds, classic statements of faith used as touchstones of Christian
orthodoxy since the fourth century."
E.D. Cope (rather well-known paleontologist) was a Pennsylvania Quaker.
His evolutionary ideas were Lamarckian, but they *were* still
'evolutionary'.
I have been unable to determine which church O.C. Marsh went to as a
child or whether he attended as an adult (other than for marriages or
funerals, including his own), but I would guess that it was one of the
New England based churches since his family was rather prominent.
The case of James Woodrow (uncle to Woodrow Wilson) is interesting. He
clearly did not see any contradiction between being a quite orthodox
Christian and an evolutionist, although his Church (Southern
Presbyterian) became more hostile to him over time. Compare the initial
church trials with later ones.
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm06_woodrow.html#Appointed
Part of the problem is that you have a strong US-centric bias. What was
true for the US (filled as it was with intellectual backwaters like the
South and frontiers until recently) in the early twentieth century was
not true in Europe. Although Darwin's *mechanism* tended to be more
popular in England than the continent, *evolution* (common descent and
change in species over time) was and remains essentially universal among
European scientists after Darwin.
"Unlike the United States, where a strong fundamentalist opposition to
evolutionism developed in the 1920s (most famously expressed in the
Scopes "monkey trial" of 1925), in Britain there was a concerted effort
to reconcile science and religion. Intellectually conservative
scientists championed the reconciliation and were supported by liberal
theologians in the Free Churches and the Church of England, especially
the Anglican "Modernists."
Part of the problem, of course, is that biographies (when they exist) of
scientists tend to focus on their scientific contributions and their
religious faith and church-going behavior (or lack thereof) is often
considered to be completely irrelevant and is not mentioned -- unless
they make a specific point of it or belonged to religious orders (as
many of the early 'scientists' did before science became an independent
profession). I do not find this lack of interest in the religious life
of professional scientists to be particularly surprising, since science,
unlike Biblical fundamentalism, does not have a litmus test of Christian
faith. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Christians, and atheists
can (and have) all make good scientists.
Fundamentalists of any stripe, OTOH, cannot be good scientists when the
evidence of nature contradicts their fundamental beliefs (whatever they
are). They can only deny that nature does contradict their beliefs or
they can discard their fundamental beliefs. Biographies of
creationists, not surprisingly, tend to emphasize their religious
beliefs rather than their scientific successes in fields of research
relevant to evolution. [With, of course, the exception of pre-Darwinian
and neo-Darwinian era scientists, when creationism was a more viable
explanation. Even then, these biological scientists were not often the
simple-minded Biblical literalists that we see on t.o. Take Louis
Agassiz, for example. He would not fit into the ICR.]
But, as the below shows, rather significant swaths of different faith
organizations have no problem with evolution. So any scientist that is
a member of these faiths need not be an atheist to be an evolutionary
biologist. Only certain narrow and fundamentalist sects within
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism seem to have a problem with
evolution.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp
>> are like creationists and other religious zealots in that
>>they will agree with (or at minimum, not disagree with) *any* argument,
>>no matter how trivially ignorant and brain-dead, if the conclusion of
>>that argument agrees with their personal biases.
>>
>>So he is tossing out these brain-dead and trivially ignorant
>>'pro-atheism' arguments to watch the "evil, atheistic evolutionists and
>>Darwinists" enthusiastically agree with them. He has, I am sure, been
>>disappointed by the responses, most of which not so politely point out
>>that the initial premises are, let us say, flawed.
>
>
> I am glad to hear you say it.
> Many pro-"evolution" arguments, e.g. Gould's argument involving the
> panda's thumb, are premised on flawed views of what the God of theism
> would and wouldn't create.
If the positive argument against evolution is that God *designed*
biological features *for* their functional utility, the quality of
design *for* the proposed function is certainly a relevant feature
worthy of discussion.
A supernatural God certainly can create any sort of design
he/she/it/they wants to. But a God that creates both good design and
terrible and inefficient design (despite presumably having knowledge of
both possibilities) for the *same* function is, from the perspective of
human designers that we know about, being erratic, inconsistent, and
unpredictable. Any argument that says that we cannot tell or speculate
about what sort of *designs* God would produce and therefore whatever we
see is what God produced is a vacuuous, contentless, and pointless,
argument amounting to little more than the assertion "Whatever we see,
goddidit." That may be convincing to those who already believe it, but
it certainly is not a scientific argument.
Or perhaps *you* have a less "flawed view" (that doesn't amount to
saying "Whatever we see, goddidit.") that explains why a God of complete
knowledge would choose to produce both the grasping human thumb (which
evolution attributes to ancestry that includes small tree climbers) and
the klutzy panda thumb (which is a crude adaptation of a former
carnivore's wrist bone)? But you need to make an argument that puts
some constraint on what God would produce, one that doesn't make *any*
possible finding in nature consistent with God's intent. If you have no
way of constraining God's intent so that some types of design are
indicative of God and others aren't, you have no *evidence* that God did
it, just blind belief.
Gould was *trying* to make a scientific argument by constraining God's
choices to rational ones similar to those than any semi-sentinent
engineer would make. That is a testable idea. An unconstrained God as
likely to produce a design of surpassing idiocy and unnecessary
complexity as a design of surpassing elegance (from an engineering
standpoint) is one that cannot be detected by the scientific method. If
you don't like Gould's choice of constraint on God's intent, please
present your own consistent and testable constraint and tell us what you
think God would do.
gen2rev
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in <bveehu$bh1$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>:
The above section should be immortalized (and/or expanded upon)
somewhere.
And this part ain't bad either.
John Wilkins
nomination already, and this is an excellent post.
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
catshark
Wilkins) wrote:
>Please, would someone nominate this as POTM? I have used my January
>nomination already,
Me too, but I can throw in a second . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Paul M Koloc
david ford wrote:
> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> outer space should be able to see him.
> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> reported seeing God.
> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
It may help if you could conceptualize GOD mythologically with a bit
more accuracy. GOD is a single infinite information density extended
over the whole Grand One Dimension and sustains simultaneously over all
time. Since GOD (the Father) has no 3-D volume, (and no measure in our
3D space) that makes him a spirit, and unobservable.
So what is GOD's relevance for us? Not much, at least until our two D
souls transition into angels, and we can share intercourse with the soul
of Christ (none other than the Holy Spirit). Then we shall see if
emergence into GOD (a backwards dinky bang) is possible.
--
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FX (301) 434-6737:
|--PH (301) 445-1075 ; mailto:p...@plasmak.com
|--Raising Support ; //www.neoteric-research.org
|--Grid Power ; //www.prometheus2.net
|------------------------------------------------------------|
Severian
<xp...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>
>david ford wrote:
>
>> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
>> outer space should be able to see him.
>> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>> reported seeing God.
>> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>
>It may help if you could conceptualize GOD mythologically with a bit
>more accuracy. GOD is a single infinite information density extended
>over the whole Grand One Dimension and sustains simultaneously over all
>time. Since GOD (the Father) has no 3-D volume, (and no measure in our
>3D space) that makes him a spirit, and unobservable.
>
>So what is GOD's relevance for us? Not much, at least until our two D
>souls transition into angels, and we can share intercourse with the soul
>of Christ (none other than the Holy Spirit). Then we shall see if
>emergence into GOD (a backwards dinky bang) is possible.
I thought that was insane rambling until I read it a second time, when
I realized it was a joke. Nice one!
- Sev
gen2rev
> Please, would someone nominate this as POTM? I have used my January
> nomination already, and this is an excellent post.
Your wish is my demand. I nominated it in
news:c8tl10tarcuq468vi...@4ax.com, about an hour before
you posted this.
[snip nominated post]
catshark
wrote:
<Cough> subject line [taken care of] <cough>
And my second stands.
John Wilkins
David Jensen
gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in
<c8tl10tarcuq468vi...@4ax.com>:
second.
[lovely post deleted]
TomS
<bveehu$bh1$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, howard hershey stated..."
[...snip...]
There is Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921), of Princeton Theological
Seminary. See his:
On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race
Princeton Theological Review vol. 9, pages 1-25 (January 1911)
as reprinted in pages 270-287 of
Mark A. Noll & David N. Livingstone, eds.
Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000
Bob Bakker, pentecostal preacher and dinosaur paleontologist. See:
<http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/articles/bakker/index.htm>
---Tom S.
All plants, from the beginning of the world, of the same kind are nothing but as
so many branches of the first plant or plants of that kind, proceeding ever
since ...
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) "Things to be Considered and Written fully about"
david ford
david ford:
>> If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
>> outer space should be able to see him.
>>
>> A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
>> reported seeing God.
>>
>> Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>
> Am I the only one that feels "david ford" is the
> construction of some Psychology instructor?
It is good to hear from you. As you will recall, we had a
discussion about a Crick quote following my post
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182108.1a895195%40posting.google.com
Do you see any [G]"mutilated" or out-of-context quotations
below?
Horgan, John. February 1991. "In the Beginning..."
_Scientific American_, 117-125. Two paragraphs on 125:
About a decade ago Orgel and Crick managed to
provoke the public and their colleagues by speculating
that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship
by intelligent beings living on another planet. Orgel
says the proposal, which is known as directed
panspermia, was "sort of a joke." But he notes that it
had a serious intent: to point out the inadequacy of all
explanations of terrestrial genesis. As Crick once wrote:
"The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so
many are the conditions which would have had to be
satisfied to get it going."
Are We Alone?
Yet other scientists think that genesis, far from being
miraculous, may be a rather common phenomenon.
Indeed, the apparent rapidity with which life arose on
the earth and the abundance of organic molecules
throughout space suggest that life may also have
occurred elsewhere in the universe, says John D.
Rummell, who manages NASA's so-called exobiology
program. Finding evidence of such life, he points out, in
addition to being an epochal event in its own right,
could illuminate earthly beginnings.
bob young
Wakboth wrote:
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> > If the Judeo-Christian God of theism exists, then those traveling to
> > outer space should be able to see him.
>
> Why? Most, if not all, Christians believe that God is omnipresent and
> spiritual, not material, and therefore not visible as such. This is
> something a three-years old would think....
......and to take this one step further as a Christian member of the BBC panel on religion said yesterday 'it
is the believers in our religion that make God so real'
In other words, if enough people get together and believe something then it will exist in the sense you
mention, spiritually [whatever that means] and not materially.
So there are no gods - it is all a juvenile primitive self con brought about through mass hysteria.
It is time to change in this new century for no other reason than the fact that over 50% of Islamic believers
have no problem in killing christians - in the name of their 'mass hysteria.
IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE BEFORE THE NEXT HOLOCAUST - which will make the first one seem like a picnic.
Bob
A Brit. In Hong Kong
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
>
>
> > A good number of individuals have traveled to outer space and none
> > reported seeing God.
>
> Depends on the definition of "outer space"; when I hear the words, I
> think of space beyond Jupiter's orbit, or even interstellar space,
> where no human has gone (so far).
>
> > Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>
> Your argument here was (supposedly) used by the Soviet cosmonauts in
> the sixties. It was idiotic and disingenuous then, and it is the same
> today.
>
> Besides, I've thought that you were trolling for creationism and God;
> what's with these lame-o "atheist" attempts?
>