Re: Simpleton's wager
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> It is better to believe in levitation than gravity.
>
> We all know that Newton's theory of gravity keeps us firmly on earth
> because of the enormous mass of earth compared to ours.
>
> But it is just a theory.
>
> I'd prove that it is best not to believe in it, and while I'll not
> give all arguments, I'll state the most compelling ones:
>
> 1. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein because it was
> DEAD WRONG in the calculation of the orbit of a celestial body. So we
> have proven that theories can be DEAD WRONG, and therefore Einstein's
> theory can be assumed to be DEAD WRONG.
>
> 2. Gravity is bad for us. Most of us who cannot resist the
> croissants, the bucket o' lard that you get in convenient sizes at
> Costco, six dollar burgers, and the diet sodas at your local 7-11 know
> this. The more the mass, the greater the force of gravity (LOL, yeah,
> right!), and the greater the pain on your joints.
>
> 3. Levitation is good for you. If you could just believe in
> levitation, and get away from gravity, then you could travel from one
> place to another without any pain in your joints. You'll also not
> need vehicles that run on fossil fuel, no rush hour traffic, no
> pollution, in others it is good for the environment. You'll be faster
> too, because the friction of air is far less than that of the earth.
>
> 4. The only reason you do not levitate is because you do not believe
> that you can. Think about it. Birds can levitate, so we know it is
> possible, and they have a smaller brain than you. Are you going to
> let a bird outbrain you?
>
> 5. What'ts the worse that happens if you find out that you cannot
> levitate? You are no worse than you currently are, stuck to the
> ground. But if levitation is right, and there is evidence all around
> us that birds can levitate, you'd be gaining the ability to not just
> save your joints, but actually the earth's environment.
>
> So, stop believing in gravity, and believe in levitation instead.
> What have you to lose?
So where do I sign up and who do I make the check out to? ;-)
Lameo Nameo
<lameo_nameo@yahoo.com>He was a firm Christian.
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 26, 3:43 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> So where do I sign up and who do I make the check out to? ;-)
>
My CFO informs me that the best way to go about this is through the
sale of franchise rights. "The Temple of Levitation"
Keep watching this space for details.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Will do. I've got my sleeping bag and a book ready so I can be first
in line.
SEARCHER
<JAGOETL@hotmail.com>> > What have you to lose?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 26, 4:23 pm, Lameo Nameo <lameo_na...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sir Issac Newton wrote more on the subject of God than on science.
> He was a firm Christian.
>
That's ok, I don't hold that against him.
Deidzoeb
<deidzoeb@gmail.com>> It is better to believe in levitation than gravity.
>
> We all know that Newton's theory of gravity keeps us firmly on earth
> because of the enormous mass of earth compared to ours.
>
> But it is just a theory.
>
> I'd prove that it is best not to believe in it, and while I'll not
> give all arguments, I'll state the most compelling ones:
>
> 1. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein because it was
> DEAD WRONG in the calculation of the orbit of a celestial body. So we
> have proven that theories can be DEAD WRONG, and therefore Einstein's
> theory can be assumed to be DEAD WRONG.
>
> 2. Gravity is bad for us. Most of us who cannot resist the
> croissants, the bucket o' lard that you get in convenient sizes at
> Costco, six dollar burgers, and the diet sodas at your local 7-11 know
> this. The more the mass, the greater the force of gravity (LOL, yeah,
> right!), and the greater the pain on your joints.
If exerting extra energy to lift the weight of our body causes joint
pains, then should weight lifters stop? The weights they lift don't
seem to cause them enough joint pain to stop doing it. Also it's
possible that a very muscular person with little or no fat may weigh
more than an overweight less-muscled person. (Yes, I think there are
degrees of how skinny or muscular some people are even beneath their
fat.) So if weight were the problem, then doctors would warn everyone
about the dangers of lifting weights or growing too much dense muscle
mass, not the dangers of flab.
Cute joke, but the problem with being overweight is that it clogs
arteries, causes high blood pressure, stroke, heart attacks, increased
chances of some types of cancer (if I remember correctly?), sometimes
causes diabetes, things like that.
... After writing all that, now I see that you were mocking people of
faith, so you were probably being ironic when you wrote this part. Oh
well.
> 4. The only reason you do not levitate is because you do not believe
> that you can. Think about it. Birds can levitate, so we know it is
> possible, and they have a smaller brain than you. Are you going to
> let a bird outbrain you?
There is not documented evidence of R. Kelly flying, in spite of how
often he has sung "I believe I can fly!" Maybe he's lying when he
sings it. "I believe I can lie! I believe I can touch the teenager on
camera!"
> 5. What'ts the worse that happens if you find out that you cannot
> levitate? You are no worse than you currently are, stuck to the
> ground. But if levitation is right, and there is evidence all around
> us that birds can levitate, you'd be gaining the ability to not just
> save your joints, but actually the earth's environment.
The trick to levitating is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
See "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" by Douglas Adams.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> The trick to levitating is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
LOL
> See "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" by Douglas Adams.
That was one strange movie. ;-)
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 26, 8:22 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 5:55 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is better to believe in levitation than gravity.
>
> > We all know that Newton's theory of gravity keeps us firmly on earth
> > because of the enormous mass of earth compared to ours.
>
> > But it is just a theory.
>
> > I'd prove that it is best not to believe in it, and while I'll not
> > give all arguments, I'll state the most compelling ones:
>
> > 1. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein because it was
> > DEAD WRONG in the calculation of the orbit of a celestial body. So we
> > have proven that theories can be DEAD WRONG, and therefore Einstein's
> > theory can be assumed to be DEAD WRONG.
>
> > 2. Gravity is bad for us. Most of us who cannot resist the
> > croissants, the bucket o' lard that you get in convenient sizes at
> > Costco, six dollar burgers, and the diet sodas at your local 7-11 know
> > this. The more the mass, the greater the force of gravity (LOL, yeah,
> > right!), and the greater the pain on your joints.
>
> If exerting extra energy to lift the weight of our body causes joint
> pains, then should weight lifters stop?
Yes, weightlifting is against levitation, and therefore sin. See
Levitationicus 3:23
> The weights they lift don't
> seem to cause them enough joint pain to stop doing it. Also it's
> possible that a very muscular person with little or no fat may weigh
> more than an overweight less-muscled person. (Yes, I think there are
> degrees of how skinny or muscular some people are even beneath their
> fat.) So if weight were the problem, then doctors would warn everyone
> about the dangers of lifting weights or growing too much dense muscle
> mass, not the dangers of flab.
>
Doctors don't know everything, if they did, the common cold would have
been cured a long time ago.
> Cute joke, but the problem with being overweight is that it clogs
> arteries, causes high blood pressure, stroke, heart attacks, increased
> chances of some types of cancer (if I remember correctly?), sometimes
> causes diabetes, things like that.
>
And how exactly does levitation change that, except for the better, by
removing pollutants that serve as catalysts for cancers? Not to
mention no pain in joints.
You are no worse off.
> ... After writing all that, now I see that you were mocking people of
> faith, so you were probably being ironic when you wrote this part. Oh
> well.
>
> > 4. The only reason you do not levitate is because you do not believe
> > that you can. Think about it. Birds can levitate, so we know it is
> > possible, and they have a smaller brain than you. Are you going to
> > let a bird outbrain you?
>
> There is not documented evidence of R. Kelly flying, in spite of how
> often he has sung "I believe I can fly!" Maybe he's lying when he
> sings it. "I believe I can lie! I believe I can touch the teenager on
> camera!"
>
Indeed, he is a charlatan, and you know the crimes he committed. No
way is he a levitation believer.
> > 5. What'ts the worse that happens if you find out that you cannot
> > levitate? You are no worse than you currently are, stuck to the
> > ground. But if levitation is right, and there is evidence all around
> > us that birds can levitate, you'd be gaining the ability to not just
> > save your joints, but actually the earth's environment.
>
> The trick to levitating is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
> See "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" by Douglas Adams.
That might work.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> Doctors don't know everything, if they did, the common cold would have
> been cured a long time ago.
I though DGG and her crew were the ones working to cure the common
cold. ;-)
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 26, 4:55 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
> It is better to believe in levitation than gravity.
>
> We all know that Newton's theory of gravity keeps us firmly on earth
> because of the enormous mass of earth compared to ours.
>
> But it is just a theory.
Interesting twist. But it's not the theory that keeps us in place, it
is the application.
The real principle that this thread demonstrates is just as one cannot
dismiss gravity, God will continue to exist regardless of what anyone
thinks or feels about Him.
Ernst
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Observer
Show that a god or gods ever existed . Mythological bullshit is just
that.
How would you calculate the probability of the the existence of a
god ? Then calculate the probability that some ignorant sheepherders ,
2007 years ago got the god data correct to more than 1 in a billion
ratio of accuracy to pure superstitious bunkum . (the 1 being
accuracy).
Then repeat the process in establishing the probability that such a
god thing would have dictated a book full of (considering the supposed
source) lies , creation , floods , earth stopping on its axis , the
advent and process of life diversification on the planet , and on
and on and on. All of which are disproved by simple scientific
observation .
The whole idiotic superstition is ridiculous
Regards
Psychonomist
>
> Ernst
the_tattie_howker
<the_tattie_howker@tiscali.co.uk>On May 27, 12:23 am, Lameo Nameo <lameo_na...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sir Issac Newton wrote more on the subject of God than on science.
> He was a firm Christian.
But on which can we say he was correct?
TTH
the_tattie_howker
<the_tattie_howker@tiscali.co.uk>On May 26, 10:55 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
> It is better to believe in levitation than gravity.
>
> We all know that Newton's theory of gravity keeps us firmly on earth
> because of the enormous mass of earth compared to ours.
>
> But it is just a theory.
>
> I'd prove that it is best not to believe in it, and while I'll not
> give all arguments, I'll state the most compelling ones:
>
> 1. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein because it was
> DEAD WRONG in the calculation of the orbit of a celestial body. So we
> have proven that theories can be DEAD WRONG, and therefore Einstein's
> theory can be assumed to be DEAD WRONG.
>
> 2. Gravity is bad for us. Most of us who cannot resist the
> croissants, the bucket o' lard that you get in convenient sizes at
> Costco, six dollar burgers, and the diet sodas at your local 7-11 know
> this. The more the mass, the greater the force of gravity (LOL, yeah,
> right!), and the greater the pain on your joints.
>
> 3. Levitation is good for you. If you could just believe in
> levitation, and get away from gravity, then you could travel from one
> place to another without any pain in your joints. You'll also not
> need vehicles that run on fossil fuel, no rush hour traffic, no
> pollution, in others it is good for the environment. You'll be faster
> too, because the friction of air is far less than that of the earth.
>
> 4. The only reason you do not levitate is because you do not believe
> that you can. Think about it. Birds can levitate, so we know it is
> possible, and they have a smaller brain than you. Are you going to
> let a bird outbrain you?
>
> 5. What'ts the worse that happens if you find out that you cannot
> levitate? You are no worse than you currently are, stuck to the
> ground. But if levitation is right, and there is evidence all around
> us that birds can levitate, you'd be gaining the ability to not just
> save your joints, but actually the earth's environment.
>
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>Hey TTH,
Long time now see. Hope things are well with you?
Nice to have you back here.
On May 29, 5:05 pm, the_tattie_howker
Dillan Fernando
<dfernando@gmail.com>both..?
TTH
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 29, 6:24 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Observer
> Show that a god or gods ever existed . Mythological bullshit is just
> that.
Show that God doesn't exist. Take a look around at the complexity of
everything around us from the atom to the universe and calculate the
probabilty that it "just happened". Right.
> All of which are disproved by simple scientific observation .
Scientific observation and aerodynamics don't agree on bumblebees.
Regards-
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On May 29, 8:38 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 6:24 pm,Observer<mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Observer
> > Show that a god or gods ever existed . Mythological bullshit is just
> > that.
>
> Show that God doesn't exist.
Observer
I have not made that claim . I merely asked that you show that a god
or gods exist
. Until someone does it shall assumed to be just mythological bull
shit.
Take a look around at the complexity of
> everything around us from the atom to the universe and calculate the
> probabilty that it "just happened". Right.
Observer
Oh please not an other dumb ass argument of proof by complexity .That
is simply spurious.
Have you no scientific knowledge on the subject ?
A little education might be very useful to you.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2004, Columbia
University Press.
Licensed from Columbia University Press
'big bang'
Crystal Reference Encyclopedia - Cite This Source
A hypothetical model of the universe which postulates that all matter
and energy were once concentrated into an unimaginably dense state, or
primaeval atom, from which it has been expanding since a creation
event some 12 thousand million years ago. The main evidence favouring
this model comes from cosmic background radiation and the redshifts of
galaxies. Evidence for an expanding universe was announced by Edwin
Hubble in 1929, and is now generally accepted.
I also suggest you study the following site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#intr
Regards
Psychonomist
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>But we can't just stop believing in gravity. There are miracles
attributed to gravity, there are gravity experiences. Gravity is
necessary to make sense of reality, and make it coherent.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 2:36 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Observer
> I have not made that claim . I merely asked that you show that a god
> or gods exist
> . Until someone does it shall assumed to be just mythological bull
> shit.
> A hypothetical model of the universe which postulates that all matter
> and energy were once concentrated into an unimaginably dense state, or
> primaeval atom, from which it has been expanding since a creation
> event some 12 thousand million years ago. The main evidence favouring
> this model comes from cosmic background radiation and the redshifts of
> galaxies. Evidence for an expanding universe was announced by Edwin
> Hubble in 1929, and is now generally accepted.
I encourage you to look up "hypothetical" and "postulate" and
"generally". I think you will find that those terms in a more
positive and temprate manner roughly equate to "mythological
bullshit".
Regards.
Mike
<mblas518@hotmail.com>On May 30, 2:36 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:38 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Show that God doesn't exist.
>
> Observer
> I have not made that claim . I merely asked that you show that a god
> or gods exist
> . Until someone does it shall assumed to be just mythological bull
> shit.
I got this from your proifle(nice pic, by the way)
"About me: Strong Atheist Lack any belief in god or gods. "
It's my understanding that a strong atheist *does* assert that.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>LOL Great post, Simpleton. I like it. I have a "Rappoccio's Wager",
too, but that one applies to global warming.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Prove it.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 29, 11:38 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 6:24 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Observer
> > Show that a god or gods ever existed . Mythological bullshit is just
> > that.
>
> Show that God doesn't exist.
Prove to me that you don't owe me $10 million dollars, or pay up by
next Tuesday. Otherwise, I say you owe me $10 million dollars until
you can prove otherwise.
I'll take my money in small denominations, less than $500 bills.
> Take a look around at the complexity of
> everything around us from the atom
This is a result of quantum mechanics, an unthinking, unfeeling
phenomenon that is a result of conservation of momentum and energy
with restrictions on quantum conjugates. No supernatural beings are
necessary to accomplish this.
> to the universe
This is a result of quantum gravity and a rapid inflationary phase.
Still no supernatural beings.
By the way, this is argument number 2 on the "All Time Worst
Creationist Arguments" list.
> and calculate the
> probabilty that it "just happened". Right.
A priori, you have no idea that this is not likely. In any case, you
can't determine the difference between an anthropic principle driven
universe and a divinely inspired universe in any case. You're just
making assertions about the associations of the universe with a deity
with no actual evidence.
> > All of which are disproved by simple scientific observation .
>
> Scientific observation and aerodynamics don't agree on bumblebees.
Does this make sense in your world? Doesn't in mine.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>You've just happily placed "God in the gaps" of our understanding.
I have news for you.... traditionally this has been a very poor
strategy, since gaps have been uniformly closing since the beginning
of history (except for a brief period in Western civilization when
gaps were forced open by fiat to accomplish political goals backed by
religious theocracy).
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 10:09 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Prove it.
Two seconds after you die, you will have the proof you seek.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 10:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Prove to me that you don't owe me $10 million dollars, or pay up by
> next Tuesday. Otherwise, I say you owe me $10 million dollars until
> you can prove otherwise.
Quid pro quo.
> This is a result of quantum mechanics, an unthinking, unfeeling
> phenomenon that is a result of conservation of momentum and energy
> with restrictions on quantum conjugates. No supernatural beings are
> necessary to accomplish this.
Prove it. Prove to me that this universe just started on it's own.
> This is a result of quantum gravity and a rapid inflationary phase.
> Still no supernatural beings.
Really? And just what initiated the matter, the principle, and
executed the action?
> By the way, this is argument number 2 on the "All Time Worst
> Creationist Arguments" list.
In your opinion.
> A priori, you have no idea that this is not likely. In any case, you
> can't determine the difference between an anthropic principle driven
> universe and a divinely inspired universe in any case. You're just
> making assertions about the associations of the universe with a deity
> with no actual evidence.
Just as you are, without actual evidence. I've said it before, but
will repeat it just for you: I agree that the principle exists, I
just don't agree on the source.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with science or the priniciples,
observations, stipulations, nor even theories thereof. The problem I
have is with those issues that are unproven being presented as
absolute truth-in-fact.
> Does this make sense in your world? Doesn't in mine.
Can't say I'm surprised. I can say that if my frame of reference were
the same as yours is, I would be pursuing the same argument(s).
Regards,
Ernst
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 10:17 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've just happily placed "God in the gaps" of our understanding.
Well, not really. You see, I have simply pointed out that some people
chose to believe in hypothesis, postulation, and general acceptance
(oh my, it has to be true if everyone believes it is true) as the
basis for truth; and some people chose to believe in God as the basis
of truth. Not coincidentally, the Bible addresses this:
1 Corinth 2:14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things
that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and
he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Yes, I know that means nothing to you, but whatever.
> I have news for you.... traditionally this has been a very poor
> strategy, since gaps have been uniformly closing since the beginning
> of history (except for a brief period in Western civilization when
> gaps were forced open by fiat to accomplish political goals backed by
> religious theocracy.
I agree that great advances have been made from a technological
standpoint, but that does nothing to solve the problem of sin.
I'm glad you mentioned political goals and religion (religious
theocracy). First of all, there has not been a Bible-sponsored
religious theocracy since the Age of Israel (Old Testament). So the
crusades and the inquisition were a man-initiated farce.
Regards.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 4:15 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nice to put it on dead people so you have a fighting chance.
The premise remains. By the way, is it that you:
a. Have the gift of twist
b. Really don't understand the context
c. Just don't have a better take or counterpoint to offer
d. All of the above
Later.
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>My vote is for b. and c. :)..
just kidding.. dev is a smart guy. He's too much into his beliefs to
be open to any couter arguments.
MrCool
<tarj_sahota1@hotmail.com>On 30 May, 23:21, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Prove to me that you don't owe me $10 million dollars, or pay up by
> > next Tuesday. Otherwise, I say you owe me $10 million dollars until
> > you can prove otherwise.
>
> Quid pro quo.
>
> > This is a result of quantum mechanics, an unthinking, unfeeling
> > phenomenon that is a result of conservation of momentum and energy
> > with restrictions on quantum conjugates. No supernatural beings are
> > necessary to accomplish this.
>
> Prove it. Prove to me that this universe just started on it's own.
What if he fails to prove it started on his own? That's means your
assertion that God exists is true? Right. Can't you see that in the
various responses you've had, they aren't asking you to prove the
opposite, they are making a point. i.e. that failure to prove a
negation of a statement false, does NOT mean that the statement is
true.
You're just fumbling around with one logical fallacy after another
because you can't adequetly justify your claim. No-one is saying that
science has all the answers, we're just saying it has much more
reasonable and likely answers than religion. Why? There is much more
evidence for the Big Bang than there is for God, at least there is
SOME evidence for the Big bang. And Big bang theory, doesn't appeal
to the supernatural, it has far fewer assumptions. AND it makes
predictions about our surroundings that we can test. Your
"explanation" has masses of assumptions (God being the biggest), no
evidence, and is not testable in any way.
> > This is a result of quantum gravity and a rapid inflationary phase.
> > Still no supernatural beings.
>
> Really? And just what initiated the matter, the principle, and
> executed the action?
See above.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Or, if the atheists are right, you won't.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 5:21 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Prove to me that you don't owe me $10 million dollars, or pay up by
> > next Tuesday. Otherwise, I say you owe me $10 million dollars until
> > you can prove otherwise.
>
> Quid pro quo.
I don't see how this is relevant. You've claimed that we cannot
disprove an assertion, and that this somehow proves it's validity.
I've simply pointed out the ridiculousness of the assertion and the
fallacy you've committed.
>
> > This is a result of quantum mechanics, an unthinking, unfeeling
> > phenomenon that is a result of conservation of momentum and energy
> > with restrictions on quantum conjugates. No supernatural beings are
> > necessary to accomplish this.
>
> Prove it. Prove to me that this universe just started on it's own.
Considering I wrote this in response to your statement that the atom
was proof of God's existence, I fail to see how this follows, even
remotely.
However, I'll ignore your irrelevant comment and explain how the
dynamics of the atom come about. The Schroedinger Equation (non-
relativistic quantum mechanics) is simply a representation of the
equation of energy conservation
E = p^2 / 2m + U
where E is the energy, P is the momentum, m is the mass, and U is an
external potential. We simply realize that p = hbar grad and rewrite
this as
E = hbar^2/2m * d^2 psi^2 /dt^2 + U psi
So you see, my assertion is true that the atom is simply described by
conservation of energy and momentum in a quantum setting.
>
> > This is a result of quantum gravity and a rapid inflationary phase.
> > Still no supernatural beings.
>
> Really? And just what initiated the matter, the principle, and
> executed the action?
Nothing, nothing, and nothing. In the big bang theory, time itself
begins with the event. Therefore, causality itself breaks down
"before" this instance, or rather better put, causality itself
*begins* with this instance. Asking what happened "before" the big
bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. It's simply
nonsensical. Of course, we don't know if the big bang is the best
explanation for the rapid inflationary phase that we observe, in fact
currently the most consistent one includes string theory and a false
vacuum instability, but none of this requires God's existence. We have
plenty of ways to accomplish this without divine intervention.
>
> > By the way, this is argument number 2 on the "All Time Worst
> > Creationist Arguments" list.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> > A priori, you have no idea that this is not likely. In any case, you
> > can't determine the difference between an anthropic principle driven
> > universe and a divinely inspired universe in any case. You're just
> > making assertions about the associations of the universe with a deity
> > with no actual evidence.
>
> Just as you are, without actual evidence.
To the contrary, I know for a fact that all of our evidence points to
a rapid inflationary phase, and have several theories to explain it.
> I've said it before, but
> will repeat it just for you: I agree that the principle exists, I
> just don't agree on the source.
>
> Just to be clear, I have no problem with science or the priniciples,
> observations, stipulations, nor even theories thereof.
I would distinctly disagree with that.
> The problem I
> have is with those issues that are unproven being presented as
> absolute truth-in-fact.
Which ones have been presented as such? Or are you making yet another
misrepresentation of my statements?
>
> > Does this make sense in your world? Doesn't in mine.
>
> Can't say I'm surprised. I can say that if my frame of reference were
> the same as yours is, I would be pursuing the same argument(s).
Oh, I guess your statement that bumblebees somehow defy aerodynamics
(that I actually responded to) will go unanswered, because I presume
you realize it's nonsense. Or are you going to take all my quotes out
of context (as you've done twice in one post, and a questionable
third, not a good track record).
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 5:40 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:17 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You've just happily placed "God in the gaps" of our understanding.
>
> Well, not really. You see, I have simply pointed out that some people
> chose to believe in hypothesis, postulation, and general acceptance
> (oh my, it has to be true if everyone believes it is true) as the
> basis for truth; and some people chose to believe in God as the basis
> of truth.
Actually, you've left out one *crucial* part of the scientific
process... that of OBSERVATION. Hypothesis and postulation are
meaningless without a prediction of an observable fact. Since
predictions about observations are falsifiable, then we can actually
have confidence in their assertions, whereas metaphysical statements
are not falsifiable, and hence give us no confidence. In any case,
asserting they are "equally likely" is pointless... you'll never be
able to prove that God created anything at all, whereas scientific
theories CAN be shown to match observations and give us information.
Therefore just because we don't understand what occurs *NOW*, doesn't
mean we'll *NEVER* understand it, whereas you WILL never be able to
understand God's nature. That is what is meant by "God of the gaps"...
you take unknown information (abiogenesis, "before" the big bang, etc)
and state that the only explanation possible is "Goddidit", which has
historically never shown to be true.
> Not coincidentally, the Bible addresses this:
> 1 Corinth 2:14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things
> that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and
> he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
>
> Yes, I know that means nothing to you, but whatever.
>
> > I have news for you.... traditionally this has been a very poor
> > strategy, since gaps have been uniformly closing since the beginning
> > of history (except for a brief period in Western civilization when
> > gaps were forced open by fiat to accomplish political goals backed by
> > religious theocracy.
>
> I agree that great advances have been made from a technological
> standpoint, but that does nothing to solve the problem of sin.
What is sin? How does religion give us any more information than
humanism? Why does one need "the carrot or the stick" to be moral,
instead of just having empathy for their fellow human beings and
acting accordingly?
>
> I'm glad you mentioned political goals and religion (religious
> theocracy). First of all, there has not been a Bible-sponsored
> religious theocracy since the Age of Israel (Old Testament). So the
> crusades and the inquisition were a man-initiated farce.
Oh, I see, whenever Christians embarrass you, just claim they're not
Christian! Abdication from responsibility. When Christians do
something "good", they're Christians, but when Christians do something
unsavory by modern standards, they're not Christian anymore.
Oh well.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>The point is that proof when you're dead is not proof to the living.
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>Wha?!.. hey can you dumb it down a bit for those of us you don't have
a PHD ? :)
What's hbar ? what's psi ? or are the explanations way beyond our
grasp ?
(if you have some tome to spare?)
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 6:59 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 May, 23:21, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 10:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Prove to me that you don't owe me $10 million dollars, or pay up by
> > > next Tuesday. Otherwise, I say you owe me $10 million dollars until
> > > you can prove otherwise.
>
> > Quid pro quo.
>
> > > This is a result of quantum mechanics, an unthinking, unfeeling
> > > phenomenon that is a result of conservation of momentum and energy
> > > with restrictions on quantum conjugates. No supernatural beings are
> > > necessary to accomplish this.
>
> > Prove it. Prove to me that this universe just started on it's own.
>
> What if he fails to prove it started on his own? That's means your
> assertion that God exists is true? Right. Can't you see that in the
> various responses you've had, they aren't asking you to prove the
> opposite, they are making a point. i.e. that failure to prove a
> negation of a statement false, does NOT mean that the statement is
> true.
Yup, otherwise he owes me a lot of money.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 5:59 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What if he fails to prove it started on his own? That's means your
> assertion that God exists is true? Right.
And that works from both sides of the argument, which is the real
point.
> You're just fumbling around with one logical fallacy after another
> because you can't adequetly justify your claim.
Know what? If I could PROVE God exists, then we would not be having
this disscussion. By the same token, If YOU could prove the big bang
occured without any assistance from God, ditto.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>Well, that does stand to reason.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 6:42 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see how this is relevant. You've claimed that we cannot
> disprove an assertion, and that this somehow proves it's validity.
> I've simply pointed out the ridiculousness of the assertion and the
> fallacy you've committed.
What I have claimed is that you can no more prove the source of our
existance than I can.
> However, I'll ignore your irrelevant comment and explain how the
> dynamics of the atom come about. The Schroedinger Equation (non-
> relativistic quantum mechanics) is simply a representation of the
> equation of energy conservation
>
> E = p^2 / 2m + U
>
> where E is the energy, P is the momentum, m is the mass, and U is an
> external potential. We simply realize that p = hbar grad and rewrite
> this as
>
> E = hbar^2/2m * d^2 psi^2 /dt^2 + U psi
>
> So you see, my assertion is true that the atom is simply described by
> conservation of energy and momentum in a quantum setting.
Ok, let me put this a different way: You've done a fine job of
defining, describing, and correlating. I agree that the atom is, as
you say described by conservation of energy and momentum et al. Where
we part ways is that you believe that all of this just happened even
considering a single event without the input of a supreme being; and I
believe that the supreme being orchestated the event.
> Nothing, nothing, and nothing. In the big bang theory, time itself
> begins with the event. Therefore, causality itself breaks down
> "before" this instance, or rather better put, causality itself
> *begins* with this instance. Asking what happened "before" the big
> bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. It's simply
> nonsensical. Of course, we don't know if the big bang is the best
> explanation for the rapid inflationary phase that we observe, in fact
> currently the most consistent one includes string theory and a false
> vacuum instability, but none of this requires God's existence.
The phrase "....we don't know if the big bang is the best explanation
for the rapid inflationary phase that we observe, in fact currently
the most consistent one includes string theory and a false vacuum
instability..." is most refreshing.
> We have plenty of ways to accomplish this without divine intervention.
No kidding? Really. And did "we" put all of those laws and principles
of physics into place, or are "we" just observing, learning how things
work, and making a best-plausable guess as to what the reality of it
is?
Thats a full loop. If you believe that does not require God's
existance, then your perception will certainly be guided by that frame
of reference.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 6:42 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which ones have been presented as such? Or are you making yet another
> misrepresentation of my statements?
No, that was a generalization.
> Oh, I guess your statement that bumblebees somehow defy aerodynamics
> (that I actually responded to) will go unanswered, because I presume
> you realize it's nonsense. Or are you going to take all my quotes out
> of context (as you've done twice in one post, and a questionable
> third, not a good track record).
I stand corrected on that one:
http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/WKA/technik/bumblebee.html
So why isn't there a bee-sized insect out there with a NACA 64-series
airfoil?
The answer is scaling. At the sizes of bee wings, the bumpy-looking
wing cross section is actually a very efficient airfoil. The key is to
recognize that at bee dimensions, Reynolds numbers are low! Many of
the fluid dynamic assumptions students use in the study of airfoils do
not hold up (since few airliners are built to bee dimensions, the
assumptions are still fine for most of us aerocritters). Once you have
a higher Cl airfoil, the L/D goes up and power requirements go down.
And, voila! the bee flies!
Actually, at small scale, and low Reynolds numbers, a surprising
variety of structures become quite good flying machines.
Been a while since aeronautics class, thanks.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 6:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, you've left out one *crucial* part of the scientific
> process... that of OBSERVATION. Hypothesis and postulation are
> meaningless without a prediction of an observable fact.
Fine, How many stings have you observed?
> What is sin? How does religion give us any more information than
> humanism? Why does one need "the carrot or the stick" to be moral,
> instead of just having empathy for their fellow human beings and
> acting accordingly?
Because man is in a fallen state, you will never see empathy, concern
or care across the board for humans by humans. That's why.
> Oh, I see, whenever Christians embarrass you, just claim they're not
> Christian! Abdication from responsibility. When Christians do
> something "good", they're Christians, but when Christians do something
> unsavory by modern standards, they're not Christian anymore.
No, you don't see. Here's an analogy (sorry if it is crude): A guy
wears a Ford shirt, wears a Ford hat, and speaks "Ford" with eloquence
(that means part numbers, specs and yada) but drives and races a
Chevrolet. He is not a Ford guy.
The Bible says "you will know them by their fruit" i.e., the actions
of a true Christian will match the policies and characteristics given
in the Word of God. Those people that used the Church and Bible as
political tools were not practicing Christian principles, I assure
you.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 6:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point is that proof when you're dead is not proof to the living.
Put that way, you're right. But you will still know.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 6:56 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yup, otherwise he owes me a lot of money.
And it follows that your stance is just because I say God exists (but
cannot prove it) then certainly God does not exist. Sounds like your
early retirement will have to wait.
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>
Except for two tiny points, and I am being needlessly unfair on you,
here:
- No one's asking you to prove that the Big Bang didn't take place.
- You're still demanding a negative proof of the Big Bang. Not
particularly clever when you say "without any assistance from.."
Say, did you work for Kent Hovind?
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>Nope, you still *may* know, not *will* know. *Will* know assumes that
there is some activity after death. There is no evidence of that.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 8:24 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
> Except for two tiny points, and I am being needlessly unfair on you,
> here:
>
> - No one's asking you to prove that the Big Bang didn't take place.
> - You're still demanding a negative proof of the Big Bang. Not
> particularly clever when you say "without any assistance from.."
Go back and take another look. I don't deny the event, I just don't
agree about the source of the event.
> Say, did you work for Kent Hovind?
No need for me to be clever, apparently that's YOUR calling.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 8:26 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
> Nope, you still *may* know, not *will* know. *Will* know assumes that
> there is some activity after death. There is no evidence of that.
I reserve the right to say "will" strictly based on faith. BTW, did
you read the part where I admitted that God's existance cannot be
proved? Hold the phone, hold the phone!!
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 30, 7:08 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:24 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > Except for two tiny points, and I am being needlessly unfair on you,
> > here:
>
> > - No one's asking you to prove that the Big Bang didn't take place.
> > - You're still demanding a negative proof of the Big Bang. Not
> > particularly clever when you say "without any assistance from.."
>
> Go back and take another look. I don't deny the event, I just don't
> agree about the source of the event.
>
Yes, and now take a look at what I said.
> > Say, did you work for Kent Hovind?
>
> No need for me to be clever, apparently that's YOUR calling.
Honest admission, bad call.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 8:50 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 6:42 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see how this is relevant. You've claimed that we cannot
> > disprove an assertion, and that this somehow proves it's validity.
> > I've simply pointed out the ridiculousness of the assertion and the
> > fallacy you've committed.
>
> What I have claimed is that you can no more prove the source of our
> existance than I can.
That's not what you stated before. You stated that we should disprove
God (which is, of course, attempting for us to verify a negative,
which I've made an analogous claim here with my $10 million dollars).
And I can no more prove the source of our existence than you can......
*yet*. That gap is closing rapidly, however.
>
> > However, I'll ignore your irrelevant comment and explain how the
> > dynamics of the atom come about. The Schroedinger Equation (non-
> > relativistic quantum mechanics) is simply a representation of the
> > equation of energy conservation
>
> > E = p^2 / 2m + U
>
> > where E is the energy, P is the momentum, m is the mass, and U is an
> > external potential. We simply realize that p = hbar grad and rewrite
> > this as
>
> > E = hbar^2/2m * d^2 psi^2 /dt^2 + U psi
>
> > So you see, my assertion is true that the atom is simply described by
> > conservation of energy and momentum in a quantum setting.
>
> Ok, let me put this a different way: You've done a fine job of
> defining, describing, and correlating. I agree that the atom is, as
> you say described by conservation of energy and momentum et al. Where
> we part ways is that you believe that all of this just happened even
> considering a single event without the input of a supreme being; and I
> believe that the supreme being orchestated the event.
This has nothing to do with the atom at all. They're entirely separate
questions. Why bring it up?
>
> > Nothing, nothing, and nothing. In the big bang theory, time itself
> > begins with the event. Therefore, causality itself breaks down
> > "before" this instance, or rather better put, causality itself
> > *begins* with this instance. Asking what happened "before" the big
> > bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. It's simply
> > nonsensical. Of course, we don't know if the big bang is the best
> > explanation for the rapid inflationary phase that we observe, in fact
> > currently the most consistent one includes string theory and a false
> > vacuum instability, but none of this requires God's existence.
>
> The phrase "....we don't know if the big bang is the best explanation
> for the rapid inflationary phase that we observe, in fact currently
> the most consistent one includes string theory and a false vacuum
> instability..." is most refreshing.
Why?
>
> > We have plenty of ways to accomplish this without divine intervention.
>
> No kidding? Really. And did "we" put all of those laws and principles
> of physics into place, or are "we" just observing, learning how things
> work, and making a best-plausable guess as to what the reality of it
> is?
We're looking at data, and making the models that describe it (very
very accurately, 1 part in 10,000 at the moment). Your question is,
"Is there a God that designed the laws of physics?" Maybe. Maybe not.
It's not a scientific postulation. It has no predictive power. It's
indistinguishable from the anthropic principle. This avenue to prove
God's existence is shut completely.
>
> Thats a full loop. If you believe that does not require God's
> existance, then your perception will certainly be guided by that frame
> of reference.
It's not a belief. I know that nothing we see requires God's
existence. God may exist anyway, but it is by no means obvious nor
necessary.
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 30, 7:13 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:26 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope, you still *may* know, not *will* know. *Will* know assumes that
> > there is some activity after death. There is no evidence of that.
>
> I reserve the right to say "will" strictly based on faith.
Didn't know you had left it unexercised.
> BTW, did
> you read the part where I admitted that God's existance cannot be
> proved?
Yes, fascinating, that. No reservation of right there?
> Hold the phone, hold the phone!!
Why, do you want to order something else?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 9:01 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 6:42 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which ones have been presented as such? Or are you making yet another
> > misrepresentation of my statements?
>
> No, that was a generalization.
Maybe you could just debate with the people debating?
> > Oh, I guess your statement that bumblebees somehow defy aerodynamics
> > (that I actually responded to) will go unanswered, because I presume
> > you realize it's nonsense. Or are you going to take all my quotes out
> > of context (as you've done twice in one post, and a questionable
> > third, not a good track record).
>
> I stand corrected on that one:
>
> http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/WKA/technik/bumblebee.html
>
> So why isn't there a bee-sized insect out there with a NACA 64-series
> airfoil?
>
> The answer is scaling. At the sizes of bee wings, the bumpy-looking
> wing cross section is actually a very efficient airfoil. The key is to
> recognize that at bee dimensions, Reynolds numbers are low! Many of
> the fluid dynamic assumptions students use in the study of airfoils do
> not hold up (since few airliners are built to bee dimensions, the
> assumptions are still fine for most of us aerocritters). Once you have
> a higher Cl airfoil, the L/D goes up and power requirements go down.
>
> And, voila! the bee flies!
>
> Actually, at small scale, and low Reynolds numbers, a surprising
> variety of structures become quite good flying machines.
>
> Been a while since aeronautics class, thanks.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion at all.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 9:15 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 6:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, you've left out one *crucial* part of the scientific
> > process... that of OBSERVATION. Hypothesis and postulation are
> > meaningless without a prediction of an observable fact.
>
> Fine, How many stings have you observed?
I have zero clue what you're talking about.
>
> > What is sin? How does religion give us any more information than
> > humanism? Why does one need "the carrot or the stick" to be moral,
> > instead of just having empathy for their fellow human beings and
> > acting accordingly?
>
> Because man is in a fallen state,
Your assertion.
> you will never see empathy, concern
> or care across the board for humans by humans. That's why.
This has nothing to do with "fallen states", this has to do with
poverty and economic differences. And I think you're totally wrong, I
think every human on the face of the earth (save for VERY few)
empathizes, feels concern, and cares, it's just a question who they
care about. Our challenge as a species is to take our well-developed
sense of empathy applied to our social group, and apply it to all of
humanity. If we succeed, then we will survive. If not, we can very
easily destroy ourselves.
>
> > Oh, I see, whenever Christians embarrass you, just claim they're not
> > Christian! Abdication from responsibility. When Christians do
> > something "good", they're Christians, but when Christians do something
> > unsavory by modern standards, they're not Christian anymore.
>
> No, you don't see. Here's an analogy (sorry if it is crude): A guy
> wears a Ford shirt, wears a Ford hat, and speaks "Ford" with eloquence
> (that means part numbers, specs and yada) but drives and races a
> Chevrolet. He is not a Ford guy.
And if he drives a Ford but runs old ladies over? Then what is he?
>
> The Bible says "you will know them by their fruit" i.e., the actions
> of a true Christian will match the policies and characteristics given
> in the Word of God. Those people that used the Church and Bible as
> political tools were not practicing Christian principles, I assure
> you.
But they were still Christian, like it or not. I'm sure in their minds
they were justified, just like the southern slave owners before the US
civil war. They KNEW the Bible was on their side. They won that
theological distinction hands down. The abolitionists in the North had
to ignore parts of the Bible to argue against slavery. The South knew
this. They felt vindicated.
So who were the Christians?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Not if you keep thinking that our lack of disproof of God's existence
is an argument FOR God's existence.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 8:31 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Know what? If I could PROVE God exists, then we would not be having
> this disscussion. By the same token, If YOU could prove the big bang
> occured without any assistance from God, ditto.
The big bang COULD have occurred without God. I've described several
situations in which God is not involved, but the universe came into
existence. There are very plausible, sensible, and defensible theories
that do not need to resort to the supernatural.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 30, 10:08 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:24 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > Except for two tiny points, and I am being needlessly unfair on you,
> > here:
>
> > - No one's asking you to prove that the Big Bang didn't take place.
> > - You're still demanding a negative proof of the Big Bang. Not
> > particularly clever when you say "without any assistance from.."
>
> Go back and take another look. I don't deny the event, I just don't
> agree about the source of the event.
It's nonsensical to even discuss the "source" of the Big Bang, since
time itself began with it in the theory.
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>--
Ambassador From Hell
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 30, 9:38 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not willing to get into specifics, but a University decided to tackle
> the question of whether or not ghosts exist. It sounds funny, I know,
> but they actually concluded that ghosts do exist. Their study included
> researching sites of alleged hauntings and they even got photos of
> ghosts. So all I can say about your naysaying is "Boo!"
>
Wow! This is so different from Cameron and Comfort scientifically
proving the existence of God.
They can establish the existence of ghosts, but not of your god!
BTW did any of the Caspers have a halo 'round his head?
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>--
Ambassador From Hell
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 30, 9:58 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No halos, but at the risk of sounding silly I will tell you that the
> primary ghost that convinced the students and their professors
> actually had an appearance not unlike the classic ghost of
> movies and story books. The gruesome spectacle appeared
> very much like a semi-transparent white sheet, suspended in
> the air. It would literally vanish and reappear, and it made
> sounds. The description of the ghost's demeanor was one of
> extreme hostility. Probably a person who formerly lived in the
> house, was an atheist and did not believe in life after death.
>
Fascinating! Have you called Reader's Digest?
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>--
Ambassador From Hell
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 11:23 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> God may exist anyway, but it is by no means obvious nor
> necessary.
God may exist. Perfect! That's what I wanted to hear.
I know as well as you that there is no way to prove the existance of
God. Also, insofar as the state of the universe (or it's predecssor,
for lack of a better term), what (where) the universe we now know is
expanding into, and all the rest...who cares?
Besides that, the point is that without a common frame of reference,
there is really no ground for disscussion. You can cite one
scientific reference after the next and even though it is observable,
it does not have the same bearing with me as with you. Bible, same
thing, reversed.
All can tell you is considering both life experience and a basic
pessimisim regarding the reliablity of systems in general the Bible
makes sense to me. Then there is that whole supernatural thing (which
may or may not exist..)
Regards,
Ernst
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 11:23 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > I reserve the right to say "will" strictly based on faith.
>
> Didn't know you had left it unexercised.
Now you know for sure.
> > BTW, did
> > you read the part where I admitted that God's existance cannot be
> > proved?
>
> Yes, fascinating, that. No reservation of right there?
Didn't seem like it was required.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 11:29 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fine, How many stings have you observed?
>
> I have zero clue what you're talking about.
strings, sorry.
> > you will never see empathy, concern
> > or care across the board for humans by humans. That's why.
>
> This has nothing to do with "fallen states", this has to do with
> poverty and economic differences.
That's why Socialism failed, Communism failed, and the people in the
Niger Delta are awash in oil and poverty at the same time, right?
> And I think you're totally wrong, I
> think every human on the face of the earth (save for VERY few)
> empathizes, feels concern, and cares, it's just a question who they
> care about. Our challenge as a species is to take our well-developed
> sense of empathy applied to our social group, and apply it to all of
> humanity. If we succeed, then we will survive. If not, we can very
> easily destroy ourselves.
I agree that every human on the face of the earth (outside of
fellowship with God) empathizes, feels concern, and cares when it
suits their own self-interest. As for applying that across the board
without reservation, good luck.
> > No, you don't see. Here's an analogy (sorry if it is crude): A guy
> > wears a Ford shirt, wears a Ford hat, and speaks "Ford" with eloquence
> > (that means part numbers, specs and yada) but drives and races a
> > Chevrolet. He is not a Ford guy.
>
> And if he drives a Ford but runs old ladies over? Then what is he?
A bad driver. You missed the point of the "Ford Analogy", I think.
> > The Bible says "you will know them by their fruit" i.e., the actions
> > of a true Christian will match the policies and characteristics given
> > in the Word of God. Those people that used the Church and Bible as
> > political tools were not practicing Christian principles, I assure
> > you.
>
> But they were still Christian, like it or not. I'm sure in their minds
> they were justified, just like the southern slave owners before the US
> civil war. They KNEW the Bible was on their side. They won that
> theological distinction hands down. The abolitionists in the North had
> to ignore parts of the Bible to argue against slavery. The South knew
> this. They felt vindicated.
They may have been Christians by virtue of salvation, but there was
definate misapplication of Bible doctrine (intentionally I believe) to
further their individual causes. True Christianity does not twist and
apply the Bible to suit. True Christianity is sacrifical from the
angle that Christians conform to to Bible and not the other way
around.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 30, 11:33 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's nonsensical to even discuss the "source" of the Big Bang, since
> time itself began with it in the theory.
In theory. It's late, gotta go. You take care.
Ernst
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 31, 4:40 am, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 11:23 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > God may exist anyway, but it is by no means obvious nor
> > necessary.
>
> God may exist. Perfect! That's what I wanted to hear.
Why do assume we were saying otherwise? If you've been reading
correctly, most atheists and agnostics here state "There is no
evidence for a personal God". And there isn't.
>
> I know as well as you that there is no way to prove the existance of
> God. Also, insofar as the state of the universe (or it's predecssor,
> for lack of a better term), what (where) the universe we now know is
> expanding into, and all the rest...who cares?
Those with intellectual curiosity. Understanding our universe is what
defines us and makes us human.
> Besides that, the point is that without a common frame of reference,
> there is really no ground for disscussion. You can cite one
> scientific reference after the next and even though it is observable,
> it does not have the same bearing with me as with you. Bible, same
> thing, reversed.
So you're saying that blind faith is equal to an observable fact?
Nonsense. Your assertions cannot be proven right or wrong and in fact
aren't demonstrated to have any bearing on reality at all.
Observations can be shown to be true, and predictions can be shown to
predict observations to a specified degree of accuracy. Therefore we
can decide which of my assertions are right and wrong, but yours share
no such luxury.
> All can tell you is considering both life experience and a basic
> pessimisim regarding the reliablity of systems in general the Bible
> makes sense to me.
You're making another assertion... not only does a creator God exist,
but the creator God is interested in our lives and plays a personal
role in them. Assertions on top of assertions.
> Then there is that whole supernatural thing (which
> may or may not exist..)
And has no evidence to support it's existence.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>No, not in theory, in actuality. Asking what came "before" the big
bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. They're both
meaningless statements.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On May 31, 5:03 am, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 11:29 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fine, How many stings have you observed?
>
> > I have zero clue what you're talking about.
>
> strings, sorry.
Considering it's unconfirmed, we don't know.... *yet*. Gap's closing,
though.
>
> > > you will never see empathy, concern
> > > or care across the board for humans by humans. That's why.
>
> > This has nothing to do with "fallen states", this has to do with
> > poverty and economic differences.
>
> That's why Socialism failed,
Socialism seems to be alive and well in Europe, Canada, Australia and
(sometimes) the US.
> Communism failed,
Communism failed because of economic catastrophe, so yes.
> and the people in the
> Niger Delta are awash in oil and poverty at the same time, right?
This would be an "economic difference" between rich and poor, so yes.
> > And I think you're totally wrong, I
> > think every human on the face of the earth (save for VERY few)
> > empathizes, feels concern, and cares, it's just a question who they
> > care about. Our challenge as a species is to take our well-developed
> > sense of empathy applied to our social group, and apply it to all of
> > humanity. If we succeed, then we will survive. If not, we can very
> > easily destroy ourselves.
>
> I agree that every human on the face of the earth (outside of
> fellowship with God) empathizes, feels concern, and cares when it
> suits their own self-interest. As for applying that across the board
> without reservation, good luck.
So you just give up on humanity and resort to the "carrot or the
stick" and hope the rapture comes and Jesus solves all our problems?
Irresponsible. There's nothing stopping us from spreading education
and promoting economic prosperity. If the US had even come CLOSE to
doing this in Iraq we wouldn't be there any more.
> > > No, you don't see. Here's an analogy (sorry if it is crude): A guy
> > > wears a Ford shirt, wears a Ford hat, and speaks "Ford" with eloquence
> > > (that means part numbers, specs and yada) but drives and races a
> > > Chevrolet. He is not a Ford guy.
>
> > And if he drives a Ford but runs old ladies over? Then what is he?
>
> A bad driver. You missed the point of the "Ford Analogy", I think.
No, I got it exactly. Your argument is "who are the true Christians",
but that's meaningless. You don't personally get to decide who is a
good Christian and who is not, do you? God is the only one to do that,
isn't it?
> > > The Bible says "you will know them by their fruit" i.e., the actions
> > > of a true Christian will match the policies and characteristics given
> > > in the Word of God. Those people that used the Church and Bible as
> > > political tools were not practicing Christian principles, I assure
> > > you.
>
> > But they were still Christian, like it or not. I'm sure in their minds
> > they were justified, just like the southern slave owners before the US
> > civil war. They KNEW the Bible was on their side. They won that
> > theological distinction hands down. The abolitionists in the North had
> > to ignore parts of the Bible to argue against slavery. The South knew
> > this. They felt vindicated.
>
> They may have been Christians by virtue of salvation, but there was
> definate misapplication of Bible doctrine (intentionally I believe) to
> further their individual causes.
Wrong. The Bible condones slavery. Just don't beat them too harshly.
> True Christianity does not twist and
> apply the Bible to suit.
And what about those that just take it at face value and feel that
it's okay to stone homosexuals? Are they "true" Christians or not?
Arguably, they're the TRUE Christians because they believe verbatim in
the Bible, and YOU'RE the one applying the Bible to suit.
> True Christianity is sacrifical from the
> angle that Christians conform to to Bible and not the other way
> around.
Precisely my point. So now do you stone homosexuals and never eat
shellfish again, or not?
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>now? Sorry--stupid question.
On May 30, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 5:44 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 4:15 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
>
> > <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nice to put it on dead people so you have a fighting chance.
>
> > The premise remains. By the way, is it that you:
>
> > a. Have the gift of twist
> > b. Really don't understand the context
> > c. Just don't have a better take or counterpoint to offer
> > d. All of the above
>
> > Later.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>On May 30, 10:38 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not willing to get into specifics, but a University decided to tackle
> the question of whether or not ghosts exist. It sounds funny, I know,
> but they actually concluded that ghosts do exist. Their study included
> researching sites of alleged hauntings and they even got photos of
> ghosts. So all I can say about your naysaying is "Boo!"
>
> On 5/30/07, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 7:13 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 30, 8:26 pm, Simpleton <h...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nope, you still *may* know, not *will* know. *Will* know assumes that
> > > > there is some activity after death. There is no evidence of that.
>
> > > I reserve the right to say "will" strictly based on faith.
>
> > Didn't know you had left it unexercised.
>
> > > BTW, did
> > > you read the part where I admitted that God's existance cannot be
> > > proved?
>
> > Yes, fascinating, that. No reservation of right there?
>
> > > Hold the phone, hold the phone!!
>
> > Why, do you want to order something else?
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>On May 31, 9:45 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you. What the fuck just happened? Are we arguing with zombies
> now? Sorry--stupid question.
lol.. yeah stupid question Dev, He's not arguing with atheists... :)
> On May 30, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 5:44 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 4:15 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Nice to put it on dead people so you have a fighting chance.
>
> > > The premise remains. By the way, is it that you:
>
> > > a. Have the gift of twist
> > > b. Really don't understand the context
> > > c. Just don't have a better take or counterpoint to offer
> > > d. All of the above
>
> > > Later.
>
> > The point is that proof when you're dead is not proof to the living.- Hide quoted text -
MrCool
<tarj_sahota1@hotmail.com>On 31 May, 02:31, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 5:59 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What if he fails to prove it started on his own? That's means your
> > assertion that God exists is true? Right.
>
> And that works from both sides of the argument, which is the real
> point.
Why snip the part of my post that answers this? Let me put it back
for you:
"No-one is saying that science has all the answers, we're just saying
it has much more reasonable and likely answers than religion." - This
is our claim and I state how this conclusion is reached:
"Why? There is much more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for
God, at least there is SOME evidence for the Big bang. And Big bang
theory, doesn't appeal to the supernatural, it has far fewer
assumptions. AND it makes predictions about our surroundings that we
can test. Your "explanation" has masses of assumptions (God being the
biggest), no evidence, and is not testable in any way."
Now where have I or any other atheist here asked you to disprove Big
Bang theory? We don't ask the other side to prove the negation,
because we recognise that for the logical fallacy it is.
If your claim is that God MAY exist, then ok. But our claim still
stands that the Big Bang MAY have happened AND is a heck of a lot more
likely and reasonable than God existing.
> > You're just fumbling around with one logical fallacy after another
> > because you can't adequetly justify your claim.
>
> Know what? If I could PROVE God exists, then we would not be having
> this disscussion. By the same token, If YOU could prove the big bang
> occured without any assistance from God, ditto.
I agree. So this means it's okay to justify a claim by asking another
to prove the negation? You keep saying that we do the opposite, but
we don't.
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>MrCool
<tarj_sahota1@hotmail.com>> No halos, but at the risk of sounding silly I will tell you that the
> primary ghost that convinced the students and their professors
> actually had an appearance not unlike the classic ghost of
> movies and story books. The gruesome spectacle appeared
> very much like a semi-transparent white sheet, suspended in
> the air. It would literally vanish and reappear, and it made
> sounds. The description of the ghost's demeanor was one of
> extreme hostility. Probably a person who formerly lived in the
> house, was an atheist and did not believe in life after death.
Several explanations:
1) Ghosts are real and the professors managed to successfully
communicate with them
2) They are conducting their own experiment on how much bullshit
religious people will buy.
3) It was a trick, someone played some kind of optical illusion on
them
4) It's a conspiracy, every one of them is lying.
5) The entire story is made up
6) It was some natural phenomenon that together with all the
professors and students psychology (i.e. their expectations of seeing
a ghost making them attribute anything strange to see a ghost)
7) Something other explanation
Now however unlikely all of these explanations are they are all are
MUCH more likely than 1). That's because 1) needs so many other
completely unsubstatiated claims to be true aswell (i.e. that there is
an afterlife, that ghosts are real, that they can interact with us,
etc.). I can say one thing for certain though, given that they were
the type of "professors" to be investigating ghosts, I'm fairly sure
that it is in their interests to exaggerate whatever they supposedly
saw.
I saw a TV program a while ago where a bunch of people made a remote
control UFO and flew it over some towns. Then they went and
interviewed the people in the towns. Some people were sceptical, and
some were complete idiots. They were even blowing their encounters
with the UFO way out of proportion. People were saying it was huge
(it was tiny) and that it made lots of sounds (it made none) and that
they saw it land (nobody saw it land) or that it did crazy things in
the air (it did nothing crazy).
I find it amazing that people can question the motives of regular
scientists so easily, but then buy into this crap.
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On May 31, 3:29 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I saw a TV program a while ago where a bunch of people made a remote
> control UFO and flew it over some towns. Then they went and
> interviewed the people in the towns. Some people were sceptical, and
> some were complete idiots. They were even blowing their encounters
> with the UFO way out of proportion. People were saying it was huge
> (it was tiny) and that it made lots of sounds (it made none) and that
> they saw it land (nobody saw it land) or that it did crazy things in
> the air (it did nothing crazy).
>
> I find it amazing that people can question the motives of regular
> scientists so easily, but then buy into this crap.
Right on, Coolio!
Remember, Pro-wrestling is real, and the moon-landing was fake.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>completely unsubstatiated claims to be true aswell ( i.e. that there is
Dillan Fernando
<dfernando@gmail.com>
Do you think you're smarter than most of the atheists here, Dillan?
lol..no dev, I'm not smarter than anyone.. according to Obs, I have an IQ of 45. I'm the least smartest person in this group.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>here last time I checked. I'm sorry you have an IQ of 45 but look on
the bright side--I'm sure it makes shiny things _way_ more
interesting.
On Jun 1, 12:49 am, "Dillan Fernando" <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dillan Fernando
<dfernando@gmail.com>
Don't be so hard on yourself. SEARCHER and Keith and Mike are still
here last time I checked. I'm sorry you have an IQ of 45 but look on
the bright side--I'm sure it makes shiny things _way_ more
interesting.
HAHA !!!...LOL.!!!.. yes... I stare at one for hours !.. then move on to the next one. they sooo shiny !
MrCool
<tarj_sahota1@hotmail.com>On 1 Jun, 05:41, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't deny that the chances do point to a hoax, but it can't be denied
> that the belief in ghosts absolutely persists. And many people who
> swear that they have encountered ghosts are perfectly credible,
> educated and in every apparent respect sane and clear-headed.
Belief in telepathy, UFOs, the Bermuda triangle, Islam, Buddhism, Big
foot, astrology, etc. etc. etc. persists. But that doesn't make any
one of them even slightly true.
> > completely unsubstatiated claims to be true aswell (i.e. that there is
> > an afterlife, that ghosts are real, that they can interact with us,
> > etc.). I can say one thing for certain though, given that they were
> > the type of "professors" to be investigating ghosts, I'm fairly sure
> > that it is in their interests to exaggerate whatever they supposedly
> > saw.
>
> > I saw a TV program a while ago where a bunch of people made a remote
> > control UFO and flew it over some towns. Then they went and
> > interviewed the people in the towns. Some people were sceptical, and
> > some were complete idiots. They were even blowing their encounters
> > with the UFO way out of proportion. People were saying it was huge
> > (it was tiny) and that it made lots of sounds (it made none) and that
> > they saw it land (nobody saw it land) or that it did crazy things in
> > the air (it did nothing crazy).
>
> > I find it amazing that people can question the motives of regular
> > scientists so easily, but then buy into this crap.
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 31, 8:54 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I got it exactly. Your argument is "who are the true Christians",
> but that's meaningless. You don't personally get to decide who is a
> good Christian and who is not, do you? God is the only one to do that,
> isn't it?
That's right. Point is that if a person is a Christian from the
perspective of a relationship rather than that of a religion, then
they are going to follow the principles promugated in the Bible, not
say one thing and then do another.
> Wrong. The Bible condones slavery. Just don't beat them too harshly.
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It
gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy
15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the
practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of
slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in
Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced
in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in
the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved
because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible
times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as
slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their
family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even
politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to
be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on
skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their
nationality - many slave owners truly believed black people to be
"inferior human beings" to white people. The Bible most definitely
does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews
experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by
choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God
poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery
(Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery.
At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of
slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no
way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past
few centuries.
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the
way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches
issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy,
and grace of God, receiving His salvation - God will reform his soul,
changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced
God's gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God
reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being
is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God's grace will in turn
be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible's prescription for
ending slavery.
As a correlation, Christ did not advocate overthrow of the Roman
government in the 1st advent, but rather focused on sprituality
"render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's).
> Precisely my point. So now do you stone homosexuals and never eat
> shellfish again, or not?
Not. There are no dietary laws in the Church Age. And while the
practice of homosexuality is condemned, Christ died for homosexuals as
well as every other category of sinner.
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On May 31, 3:08 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Why? There is much more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for
> God, at least there is SOME evidence for the Big bang. And Big bang
> theory, doesn't appeal to the supernatural, it has far fewer
> assumptions. AND it makes predictions about our surroundings that we
> can test. Your "explanation" has masses of assumptions (God being the
> biggest), no evidence, and is not testable in any way."
I respect your view, and I just see it a different way.
The discussions in this forum point me to the conclusion that my take
on things and the Atheist's take on things come from different frames
of reference.
Atheist's observe the world around themselves, and fill in the gaps
with theory, postulation, and hypothesis. That's fine.
I take a look around and primarily from a complexity standpoint, have
the opinion that there is way to much going on to have just
"happened". Some folks take for granted things like the composition
of the atmosphere, and that light exists and eyeballs are designed to
process light-based information.
One more thing: Biblical truth is built on supernatural phenomena.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say this does exist. Can it be
proven? No. Does that make it cease to exist? No.
Regards,
Ernst
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>My not to bright are we ?
Ha Ha Ha
Observer
On May 30, 5:31 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 5:59 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What if he fails to prove it started on his own? That's means your
> > assertion that God exists is true? Right.
>
> And that works from both sides of the argument, which is the real
> point.
>
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>I'm sorry Ernst , but you are just an uneducated oaf who has no idea
what scientific method is for .
You are to be pitied . You spread your superstitious filth with zero
understanding of the world around you.
Read a little history and learn about the tens of millions of people
who were tortured to death because of what your kind believe .
If you were just a single mindless moron , then no harm. But you are
in alliance with and give aid to one of the most hideous ideologies
ever to attack humanity .
You and your ilk are an example of the reasons that psychopathic mass
murderers can and have risen to power .
Hitler was a fine Christian man who lead a fine Christian nation in
the slaughter of thirty million Jews . Are you proud ?
Isn't 2000 years of these horrors enough ?
You surly can see the atrocities in the Muslims with their terrorist
ways . Why do you not see it as a fact of Christian history ?
You worship a mythological deity that mis described by your own bible
as a inept, sadomasochistic monster .
Psychonomist
MrCool
<tarj_sahota1@hotmail.com>> On May 31, 3:08 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Why? There is much more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for
> > God, at least there is SOME evidence for the Big bang. And Big bang
> > theory, doesn't appeal to the supernatural, it has far fewer
> > assumptions. AND it makes predictions about our surroundings that we
> > can test. Your "explanation" has masses of assumptions (God being the
> > biggest), no evidence, and is not testable in any way."
>
> I respect your view, and I just see it a different way.
>
> The discussions in this forum point me to the conclusion that my take
> on things and the Atheist's take on things come from different frames
> of reference.
>
> Atheist's observe the world around themselves, and fill in the gaps
> with theory, postulation, and hypothesis. That's fine.
I know how you think about this stuff. I was taking issue with you
pushing the burden of proof on us. Also, theories aren't to "fill the
gaps", they are to explain the world around us so we can understand
how it works and make predictions based on that understanding. A
theory is just an explanation, if you have a crap theory, you have a
crap explanation - simple.
> I take a look around and primarily from a complexity standpoint, have
> the opinion that there is way to much going on to have just
> "happened". Some folks take for granted things like the composition
> of the atmosphere, and that light exists and eyeballs are designed to
> process light-based information.
Science tells us how all those things arose from simple beginnings.
At best, you have to accept something very simple like a singularity
that just "happened', but that's not correct either. We don't know
how/if there was a beginning, maybe time goes back forever, maybe
there is a beginning, maybe it's a loop. If you say there must be,
prove it. Any sequence of explanations either keeps going back or at
some point stops. You assert that it stops, and that it stops at a
God thing, but what if it stops at the beginning of the universe? If
you can just assert that your God thing is the very beginning, then
that has disproved the notion that everything needs a predecessor/
explanation, which in turn makes the assertion that the universe needs
an explanation, to be wrong too.
No-one is asserting that it "just happened". And if the idea of
having something that "just happened" or existed forever is so
ridiculous to you, why postulate the existence of a God thing that
"just happened"/existed forever (and remember the whole reason you
postulated your God thing because you didn't like it that something
"just happened"/existed forever)? You are violating your own
standards the moment you do this (and don't say because God is somehow
"different" because in a justification of why He exists, you cannot
assume He exists, let alone that assume He does AND is "different".
If you do, you are begging the question - another logical fallacy).
But at least you are attempting a justification now instead of asking
us to justify the negation. That's a step closer to justifying Him I
guess.
> One more thing: Biblical truth is built on supernatural phenomena.
> Just for the sake of argument, let's say this does exist. Can it be
> proven? No. Does that make it cease to exist? No.
The same can be said about fairies, invisible flying elephants, etc.
I understand that you are saying that just because you cannot prove
your claim doesn't make it false, and obviously I agree with this.
God MAY exist - it is certainly possible. As long as we have gaps in
our understanding though, we'll always be able to stuff lots of weird
beings and creatures in those gaps. It doesn't mean we should though.
> Regards,
>
> Ernst
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Jun 2, 12:03 pm, Ernst <a6m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 8:54 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, I got it exactly. Your argument is "who are the true Christians",
> > but that's meaningless. You don't personally get to decide who is a
> > good Christian and who is not, do you? God is the only one to do that,
> > isn't it?
>
> That's right. Point is that if a person is a Christian from the
> perspective of a relationship rather than that of a religion, then
> they are going to follow the principles promugated in the Bible, not
> say one thing and then do another.
So do they stone people to death for talking back to their parents or
not?
>
> > Wrong. The Bible condones slavery. Just don't beat them too harshly.
>
> The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It
> gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy
> 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the
> practice altogether.
This is splitting hairs. The Bible implicitly condones the action by
advising how best to treat one's slaves.
> Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of
> slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in
> Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced
> in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in
> the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved
> because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible
> times, slavery was more of a social status.
You're deluding yourself. Slaves were property.
> People sold themselves as
> slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their
> family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even
> politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to
> be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.
So they sold themselves. They were still property and treated exactly
as the master desired. They could even buy back their freedom, but
that just means they could pay for their own existence. They're still
property.
How is this different from the "bad" slavery practiced ever since?
> The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on
> skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their
> nationality - many slave owners truly believed black people to be
> "inferior human beings" to white people. The Bible most definitely
> does condemn race-based slavery.
Oh, no, the Bible is indeed racist as well... the Jews are a chosen
race, remember?
> Consider the slavery the Hebrews
> experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by
> choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14).
This isn't a "race". They're the same "race". They enslaved a national
group. In any case, God makes it very clear that this particular
national group is His "chosen" national group.
> The plagues God
> poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery
> (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery.
Yes, those against Jews. Everything else is fair game.
> At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of
> slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no
> way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past
> few centuries.
Were you a slave in the 1st century? Were you ever raped by your
master, or crucified for spilling wine at a dinner party? Were you
forced into gladitorial combat against your will? Were you
dehumanized, demoralized, and treated as an animal?
You're just fitting a square peg in a round hole so that your world-
view of "Bible = good, everything else = bad" becomes unfalsifiable.
Any actual reading of the Bible must be "interpreted" in some places
and not others in order to slip out of the slavery argument, as you've
done. It just means you have to make all sorts of assertions and
"interpret" the Bible (which, of course, can be interpreted in any
number of ways, and presuming you've gotten it right and everyone else
has gotten it wrong is just unjustified).
>
> Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the
> way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches
> issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy,
> and grace of God, receiving His salvation - God will reform his soul,
> changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced
> God's gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God
> reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being
> is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God's grace will in turn
> be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible's prescription for
> ending slavery.
Oh, so the Bible really is just an allegory? Was the birth and death
of Christ an allegory? How about the ressurection of Christ? Still
allegory?
>
> As a correlation, Christ did not advocate overthrow of the Roman
> government in the 1st advent, but rather focused on sprituality
> "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's).
>
> > Precisely my point. So now do you stone homosexuals and never eat
> > shellfish again, or not?
>
> Not. There are no dietary laws in the Church Age. And while the
> practice of homosexuality is condemned, Christ died for homosexuals as
> well as every other category of sinner.
Why do you think the dietary laws now (Church Age? What does that even
mean?) don't apply any more, but the restrictions about homosexuality
do? They're given nearly equal amounts of treatment in the Bible
(maybe a few sentences either way). Why do you think one should be
followed and not the other?
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On Jun 4, 9:35 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you think the dietary laws now (Church Age? What does that even
> mean?) don't apply any more, but the restrictions about homosexuality
> do? They're given nearly equal amounts of treatment in the Bible
> (maybe a few sentences either way). Why do you think one should be
> followed and not the other?
A rather elegant point.
It constantly gets argued how Junior "fulfilled the law", meaning all
that old nonsense was gone, and in its place were two simple things:
a. Thou shalt love me
a'. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (who thee shalt love less/
hate more than moi)
Nothing else. So it is open season on shellfish, and polyester disco
pants, but women submitting to a man and things? NYET.
Fulfilled apparently fulfilled all things that we liked but were
forbidden, but not things we are prejudiced against, or don't like.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Kind of like "You know you've invented a God when your God hates all
the same people you do?" :).