The Logic Behind the Belief in God

[jonathan]

When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
and the Universe.

Science refutes the concept of God
by claiming to be a God.


Jonathan


"I dwell in Possibility
A fairer House than Prose
More numerous of Windows
Superior for Doors
Of Visitors the fairest
For Occupation -- This
The spreading wide of narrow Hands
To gather Paradise"


s

[RonO]

On 4/20/2014 7:47 AM, jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> and the Universe.
>
> Science refutes the concept of God
> by claiming to be a God.

Science does no such thing, so you are full of the usual stuff that you
are full of. Science is just the best means we have of figuring things
out that pertain to nature. To compete with science all you need to do
is be able to study what you are claiming to be able to study. Making
junk up doesn't help.

Really, all science can say is that there is no viable evidence for the
existence of what you claim to be god. Science can't claim that there
is no god, just that there is a lack of scientific evidence for the claim.

As far as refuting some concepts of some god, science can only do that
if you claim testable attributes to such a god. If you claim that your
god created the universe last Tuesday, that might be true, but it is
fairly well refuted by the existing evidence. You could make the claim
irrefutable by claiming that your god created everything as if the past
really happened when it did not, but why? If you claim that your god
created an immovable earth at the center of the universe with everything
spinning around it, that is pretty much refuted. It could be true, but
what would be the point of some god doing everything that needs to be
done for that to be true. If you claim that your god created the earth
just a few thosand years ago, that has been scientifically refuted. The
existence of such a god may not be very likely, but only your claims
about such a god would have been refuted.

So science might tell you that something is wrong with your concept of
some god, but it really can't tell you much about some god. Unless you
make your concept testable science can't say one way or the other. This
just means that if you think that science has refuted the existence of
your god, you likely have the wrong concept of that god and have chosen
attributes that science can have a say on. This would be your problem
and not a problem with science.

Ron Okimoto

[Charles Brenner]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:47:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> and the Universe.

> Science refutes the concept of God
> by claiming to be a God.

> Jonathan

For me a prerequisite for believing in anything is to know what it is. The above is an excellent and typical example of vague. "Greater" can be interpreted in numerous ways, "mysterious" is vague by definition. If God is defined as whatever is "greater and mysterious" then I wouldn't argue whether it exists, but would only note that pointlessly attaching a name to it doesn't make it interesting or consequential.

Charles

[Kalkidas]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>and the Universe.
>
>Science refutes the concept of God
>by claiming to be a God.

It's true, envy is the psychological motive behind atheism, no matter
how much they babble about "evidence".

[jillery]

It's not even wrong, no matter how much you babble about
self-evidence.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be envying as an atheist. God? Not a job I'd want. No surprises, nothing to learn. Believers? Some of them seem happy enough in their beliefs, but no more so than plenty of atheists I know.

Trying to find psychological motivations for other people's beliefs is a wild indulgence in the sort of just-so stories that creationists love to critique in others.

[Roger Shrubber]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:40:41 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>

>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing greater
>>> than ourselves which will always remain mysterious is essentially
>>> a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature and the Universe.

>>> Science refutes the concept of God by claiming to be a God.
>> It's true, envy is the psychological motive behind atheism, no
>> matter

>> how much they babble about "evidence".

> I'm not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be envying as an
> atheist. God? Not a job I'd want. No surprises, nothing to learn.
> Believers? Some of them seem happy enough in their beliefs, but no
> more so than plenty of atheists I know.
>
> Trying to find psychological motivations for other people's beliefs
> is a wild indulgence in the sort of just-so stories that
> creationists love to critique in others.

The problem here is that for those who begin with the belief
that there is a greater power, some confuse
A) not beginning with such a belief with
B) beginning with a belief that there is not a greater power.

The subset of believers who presume atheists match
to B) then view atheists as fundamentally arrogant.

There's much to be said for abandoning oneself to the
will of a higher power. I understand that's why some
men get married.

[Robert Camp]

Of all the arguments put forth against disbelief or lack of belief, that
is one of the more thoughtless. It's a childish bit of self-delusion and
it inevitably says more about the one who makes it than his target.

[Robert Camp]

On 4/20/14 5:47 AM, jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> and the Universe.

Not at all. Such a perspective could easily be a provisional conclusion
drawn from an assessment of the available evidence (it is in my case).

> Science refutes the concept of God
> by claiming to be a God.

Utter nonsense.

[Kalkidas]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

How breezy and glib!

[Kalkidas]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:42:06 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:40:41 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>
>>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing greater
>>>> than ourselves which will always remain mysterious is essentially
>>>> a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature and the Universe.
>
>>>> Science refutes the concept of God by claiming to be a God.
>>> It's true, envy is the psychological motive behind atheism, no
>>> matter
>
>>> how much they babble about "evidence".
>
>> I'm not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be envying as an
>> atheist. God? Not a job I'd want. No surprises, nothing to learn.
>> Believers? Some of them seem happy enough in their beliefs, but no
>> more so than plenty of atheists I know.
>>
>> Trying to find psychological motivations for other people's beliefs
>> is a wild indulgence in the sort of just-so stories that
>> creationists love to critique in others.
>
>The problem here is that for those who begin with the belief
>that there is a greater power, some confuse
> A) not beginning with such a belief with
> B) beginning with a belief that there is not a greater power.

I say C) beginning with knowledge that there is a greater power, and
suppressing it out of envy.

Human psychology is not difficult, because humans are not as different
from one another as they like to think. All one has to do is observe
one's own mind, and you can bet that most other people have had the
same thoughts.

>
>The subset of believers who presume atheists match
>to B) then view atheists as fundamentally arrogant.
>
>There's much to be said for abandoning oneself to the
>will of a higher power. I understand that's why some
>men get married.

Heh ;-)

[jillery]

Not nearly as breezy and glib as you. You win again!

[jillery]

And how do you know other people suppress it out of envy?
Self-evident? Mind reading? God told you?

[Roger Shrubber]

Except, I was raised to believe in a higher power but not
in a way that emphasized mindless acceptance.
And despite that overriding presumption of a higher power,
there was neither knowledge or evidence of such. I would
have liked to have believed. Life would have been easier.
Your presumption about me does not fit.

> Human psychology is not difficult, because humans are not as different
> from one another as they like to think. All one has to do is observe
> one's own mind, and you can bet that most other people have had the
> same thoughts.

Well some humans yes. It's unlikely you are I are unique.
But there's more diversity than you suggest. There's more
than one mold. This is obvious on many fronts. There are
born leaders, born followers, born artists, born scientists,
born engineers, born entrepreneurs. Your assertion that we
are the same is ultimately dubious even if there are many
others that are like you and like me, they are not the
same others.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> and the Universe.
>

It might be a bit foolish but making it out to be a claim to a God-like
knowledge is stretching things somewhat.

> Science refutes the concept of God
> by claiming to be a God.
>

Where does science claim to be a God?

[...]

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 8:06:06 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> >Trying to find psychological motivations for other people's beliefs is a wild indulgence in the sort of just-so stories that creationists love to critique in others.
>
>
>
> How breezy and glib!

It may indeed be a bit breezy and glib. But for all around breeziness and glibness it's hard to compete with dismissing the arguments for atheism as "babble about evidence," motivated by envy.

[chris thompson]

Do you realize you're doing the exact same thing as Ny***os when you assign motive and purpose to the statements of someone you've interacted with only through talk.origins? Which, if I recall correctly, you've condemned rather strongly in the past.

Chris

[Nick Roberts]

In message <h2p8l95v3kd7plgns...@4ax.com>

But this is Kalkidas, who has had the Truth given to him by a personal
telecon from God[1]. How can that be breezy & glib?

[1]Or possibly, told God where he was going wrong.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[jillery]

His god is omni-glibbous?

>[1]Or possibly, told God where he was going wrong.

I suspect that he considers himself merely the right hand of God.

[Steven L.]

On 4/20/2014 8:47 AM, jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> and the Universe.

No, that's not true. Your proposition fails for much the same reason as
Pascal's Wager.

There may well be *something* greater than ourselves in this Universe. I
regard that as more likely than the alternative.

But it may not be the Judeo-Christian concept of God. There are many
other possibilities of "intelligences greater than ourselves."

For example, in his original TV series "Cosmos" (1979), Carl Sagan
imagined an ultra-advanced extraterrestrial civilization thousands of
light-years from Earth, populated by some very exotic aliens:


Civilization:
Type: 2.3 R [10^7 times more knowledge than we do]
Interstellar civilization, no planetary communities;
energy sources include 1,504 supergiants, OV, BV, AV stars and pulsars.
Civilization age: 192 million Earth years.
Local Group polylogue.

Biology:
C, H, O, Be, Fe, Ge, He.
Metal-chelated organic semiconductors, types various.
Genomes: 6 x 10^17.
Cryogenic superconducting electrovores with neutron crystal dense
packing and modular starminers; polytaxic.


Would such aliens be gods?
No.
But they might as well be.


--
Steven L.

[jillery]

Yeppers. Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.

[Kalkidas]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:25:23 -0400, Roger Shrubber

I don't think how one was raised has much to do with it. Every soul
knows there is a power greater than oneself supervising the world.
This is inherent knowledge, not mere belief or faith.

Some questions I ask myself: Are you really satisfied with the degree
to which you have taken your self-examination, or are you cheating a
little bit to retain some cherished notions of your own uniqueness and
importance?

[Robert Camp]

On 4/21/14 4:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> jonathan wrote:
>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>> and the Universe.
>>
>
> It might be a bit foolish but making it out to be a claim to a God-like
> knowledge is stretching things somewhat.

Interesting. Why would it be foolish to "believe there's nothing greater
than ourselves which will always remain mysterious" (note the qualifier)?

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:02:47 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> I don't think how one was raised has much to do with it. Every soul
>
> knows there is a power greater than oneself supervising the world.
>
> This is inherent knowledge, not mere belief or faith.
>
>
>
> Some questions I ask myself: Are you really satisfied with the degree
>
> to which you have taken your self-examination, or are you cheating a
>
> little bit to retain some cherished notions of your own uniqueness and
>
> importance?

Why would you cherish notions of your uniqueness and importance? It's quite a relief to realize you are neither important nor unique, at least not outside a small circle of family and friends.

[Inez]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:47:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:

> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>
> and the Universe.
>
>
>
> Science refutes the concept of God
>
> by claiming to be a God.
>
>

If there is no God, how can a thing be God-like?

And *has* science refuted the concept of God? Or for that matter determined that there is nothing greater than ourselves that must always remain mysterious? Can you link me to the paper?

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/20/14 11:40 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Envy of whom, exactly? You might want to believe you are enviable, but
you aren't.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Roger Shrubber]

Kalkidas wrote:

> I don't think how one was raised has much to do with it. Every soul
> knows there is a power greater than oneself supervising the world.
> This is inherent knowledge, not mere belief or faith.

There are two distinct claims of knowledge there.
That there is a greater power supervising the world,
and that everyone knows it.
I know that one of those claims is false.
You'll then have to see why I don't necessarily accept
your other one. Or I could take you literally and that
would just leave me soulless.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Bearing in mind, how little we know about the universe, never mind anything
that may be beyond the universe as we do know it, it seems foolish in the
extreme to me for anybody to assume that there's nothing out there which is
beyond our understanding , may always be beyond our understanding and may be
much greater than us in terms of things like intelligence and understanding
which I am assuming is what the OP meant.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:17:38 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:02:47 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> I don't think how one was raised has much to do with it. Every soul
>>
>> knows there is a power greater than oneself supervising the world.
>>
>> This is inherent knowledge, not mere belief or faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some questions I ask myself: Are you really satisfied with the degree
>>
>> to which you have taken your self-examination, or are you cheating a
>>
>> little bit to retain some cherished notions of your own uniqueness and
>>
>> importance?
>
>Why would you cherish notions of your uniqueness and importance?

Not big on self-examination, are you?

>It's quite a relief to realize you are neither important nor unique, at least not outside a small circle of family and friends.

So it's OK to be a big fish in a small pond, but it's not OK to be the
biggest fish in a big pond?

In other words, it's OK to be you, but it's not OK to be God.

I rest my case.

[Burkhard]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:47:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
>
> > When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>
> >
>
> > greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>
> >
>
> > is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>
> >
>
> > and the Universe.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Science refutes the concept of God
>
> >
>
> > by claiming to be a God.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> If there is no God, how can a thing be God-like?
>

In the same way a detective can be "Sherlock like" in his deductions,
a real city can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"
or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like (now, how do I turn this into
a chat up line .. :o))

That is, by having most or all of the attributes that are in common
descriptions that that entity is said to have
(note, I don't consider "existence" an attribute)

[Inez]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:56:01 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> On Monday, April 21, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:47:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>
> > > greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>
>
> > > is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> >
>
> > > and the Universe.
> >
>
> > > Science refutes the concept of God
>
>
> > > by claiming to be a God.
>
>
> > If there is no God, how can a thing be God-like?
>
> >
>
>
>
> In the same way a detective can be "Sherlock like" in his deductions,
>
> a real city can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado,_Arkansas

>
> or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like (now, how do I turn this into
>
> a chat up line .. :o))
>
>
>
> That is, by having most or all of the attributes that are in common
>
> descriptions that that entity is said to have
>
> (note, I don't consider "existence" an attribute)

So if God doesn't exist, then other things that don't exist must be God-like?

[broger...@gmail.com]

I wasn't aware the job was on offer.

>
>
>
> I rest my case.

I fear the jury may have trouble making out exactly what your case is. But it's probably at its strongest just as you've expressed it.

[Robert Camp]

Well I guess it comes down to what he meant by "...will always remain
mysterious..."

I did not take this stipulation to be about technological and
epistemological difficulties - as you appear to have done. This would
clearly be a reasonable take on human limitations (and not something I
would expect from jonathan).

I took it to be a reference to a transcendent entity of some sort. And a
belief that there's no such thing doesn't seem foolish to me at all, not
even a bit.

I suppose I may have misread your intent, and possibly even jonathan's.

[Roger Shrubber]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:51:18 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:


>> In other words, it's OK to be you, but it's not OK to be God.
>
> I wasn't aware the job was on offer.

Third Tuesday of the month for months that have two full moons.
It's yours. We'll be watching you July 21st 2015.
Unfortunately, it takes more than 24 hours for powers to vest
so you get the culpability but not much in the way of authority.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

I think there are two questions here which too often get misleadingly
intermingled.

The first is whether there is some "supernatural" force - supernatural in
the sense that it is beyond what we understand as "natural". Ruling out the
very possibility of that is what I consider foolish.

The second question is whether "God" as defined by various religious groups
is a justifiable description of that force. Whilst I have a personal opinion
on that, I accept that opinions of others may vary on it and I have no way
of conclusively showing that my opinion is better than theirs; Jonathan
seems to extend "foolishness" to anyone who disagrees with his particular
concept of "God".

[Robert Camp]

This is where we get back to my original query (and maybe also deeper
into semantics). I don't consider believing that there's "...nothing
greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious..." - which I
am interpreting as a reference to the supernatural - to be equivalent
with "ruling out" the possibility.

If one formulates evaluations of the natural world based upon
provisional assessment of the available evidence it is entirely
reasonable to believe (as I do) that the evidence favors the negative
appraisal while still demurring from an outright "ought" statement.

In fact I go further. It's my position there *cannot* be natural
evidence of the supernatural. But I still don't see this as ruling out
the possibility of the existence of such a thing.

<snip>

[Burkhard]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:02:06 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:

can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado,_Arkansas
>
>
> > or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like (now, how do I turn this into
> > a chat up line .. :o))
>

> > That is, by having most or all of the attributes that are in common
> > descriptions that that entity is said to have
> > (note, I don't consider "existence" an attribute)
>
>
> So if God doesn't exist, then other things that don't exist must be God-like?

Hah! If your mind works in classical logic, then you are spot on. In
fact, something stronger would follow: If God doesn't exist, then all other
things that don't exist are God-like. That's because in that approach,
all non-existing things have exactly the same properties, i.e. none.

Now, for me that's a good reason to argue that classical logic isn't a
good candidate to describe our reasoning capacity, at least not all of
it. Id say we understand perfectly that the following sentences are
true:

Sherlock Holmes was a detective.
Sherlock Holmes is not Inspector Morse
Sherlock Holmes lived in London
Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Conan Doyle

and the following are false
Sherlock Holmes was a football player for Arsenal
Sherlock Holmes is the same as the Easter Bunny
Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Raymond Chandler

which means we can reason abut non-existing
objects, distinguish them from other non-existing
objects, and also compare them to existing objects.

Ok, serious hobby horse alert here, but I just got a paper
accepted that asks the important question if Dumbledore
is gay, and work on another that analyses the riveting
question of the age of Holme's brother....

But one influential theory in that field comes from
Ed Zalta. Details are here:
http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/pretense.pdf

but the basic idea is that abstract objects, of which fictional
objects are a subgroup, are completely defined by the set of
sentences (description) that introduce them. They don't have
properties, rather they "encode" them. A god-like object
can then be any existing or non-existing object that encodes
(is described as having) the same properties as those that
the descriptions say God has - where s/he exists or not.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Yes, I think you are becoming excessively semantic now - the difference
between believing something doesn't exist reminds but not ruling it out me
of Truman's desire for a one-armed economist :)

[Robert Camp]

On the other hand, were there no difference between them one could not
both hold such a belief and be open to modifying evidence simultaneously.

In other words, I don't believe you are correct that the difference is
entirely semantic, but I'm not ruling it out.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2014-04-21 16:56:01 +0000, Burkhard said:

> On Monday, April 21, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:47:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>>
>>>
>>
>>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>>
>>>
>>
>>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>>
>>>
>>
>>> and the Universe.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Science refutes the concept of God
>>
>>>
>>
>>> by claiming to be a God.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> If there is no God, how can a thing be God-like?
>>
>
> In the same way a detective can be "Sherlock like" in his deductions,
> a real city can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"

> or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like...

*
In other words, a thing can be "God-like" in the sense that it can be
compared with a fictitous being. God is like Sherlock Holmes, or El
Dorado, etc.

Well said.

earle
*

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:21:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:02:06 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:
>
>can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado,_Arkansas
>>
>>
>> > or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like (now, how do I turn this into
>> > a chat up line .. :o))
>>
>
>> > That is, by having most or all of the attributes that are in common
>> > descriptions that that entity is said to have
>> > (note, I don't consider "existence" an attribute)
>>
>>
>> So if God doesn't exist, then other things that don't exist must be God-like?
>
>Hah! If your mind works in classical logic, then you are spot on. In
>fact, something stronger would follow: If God doesn't exist, then all other
>things that don't exist are God-like. That's because in that approach,
>all non-existing things have exactly the same properties, i.e. none.

I disagree. Classical logic will not allow the validity of statements
like "X has the property that it has no properties", which is a
contradiction.

"Having no propeties" cannot itself be a property.

Therefore, to say "all non-existing things have exactly the same
properties, i.e. none" -- is at best an abuse of language.

And there is also the fact that to call something a "thing" is to
assert its existence. Contrapositively, to deny its existence is to
deny its "thingness". But if it's not a "thing", then one can have no
concept of it, which makes all discussion of it empty noise.

So if someone wants to say "God doesn't exist", their next step should
be to stop talking about it forever.

Therefore to assert that a "thing" doesn't exist is a contradiction,
and to use a phrase like "things that don't exist" is an abuse of
language.

I do not think classical logic will allow premises like "God doesn't
exist", because the term "God" cannot be specified, or made to signify
anything, without asserting its existence.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/21/14 10:50 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
> The first [question] is whether there is some "supernatural"

> force - supernatural in the sense that it is beyond what we
> understand as "natural". Ruling out the
> very possibility of that is what I consider foolish.

How about ruling out the meaningfulness of such a thing. Ten years ago,
dark energy, shape-memory alloys, and 50-ton crystals were all beyond
what I understood as "natural". Now, with discoveries by others and
learning on my part, my understanding of nature includes them all. In
fact, my whole life has been an expanding of my understanding of nature.
Calling something "supernatural" simply because I don't know about it
makes no sense to me, any more than it would make sense to call dark
energy "supernatural" ten years ago but not now.

You are probably thinking now that that's not really what you meant by
"supernatural". But if not that, then what? Defining it in terms of
other people's understanding -- even if that means the understanding of
all people for all time -- is not a qualitative improvement. I reject
the notion that the human mind should be the defining feature of
"supernatural".

Or perhaps you did intend exactly and literally what you said. In that
case, I agree that ruling out the possibility of the supernatural is
foolish. Just as foolish would be to abstain from seeking out the
"supernatural", understanding it, and by so doing, destroying its
supernatural quality.

[Burkhard]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:28:21 PM UTC+1, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>On 2014-04-21 16:56:01 +0000, Burkhard said:
> On Monday, April 21, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:

>
> >>> Science refutes the concept of God
> >>> by claiming to be a God.
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > In the same way a detective can be "Sherlock like" in his deductions,
> > a real city can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"
> > or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like...
>

> In other words, a thing can be "God-like" in the sense that it can be
> compared with a fictitous being. God is like Sherlock Holmes, or El
> Dorado, etc.
>
>
>
> Well said.
>
>
>
> earle
>

Please note Helen's* carefully phrased "IF" sentence, to which I
replied. For the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't matter
what you believe about existence of deities.

*hah, did it finally :o)

[jonathan]

"Charles Brenner" <challam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2654462-20fd-43e7...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:47:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>> and the Universe.
>

>> Science refutes the concept of God
>> by claiming to be a God.
>

>> Jonathan


>
> For me a prerequisite for believing in anything is to know what it is.


And that's the great mistake of modern science when it comes
to understanding how nature and reality works, the obsession
over causes or initial conditions, what things really 'are'.

All visible order, physical or living, is cyclic in character.
For instance, a fairly stable orbit, can you tell me the
exact path it took leading up to that stable orbit?

Of course not, any one of thousand possible paths could
lead to that orbit. Once a cycle is established, the
direct evidence of its original path, initial conditions
or 'causes' are erased completely.

Once something has become cyclic, or gone 'viral', trying
to unravel the precise details of its past is a fools errand.
Especially with the creation of something as complicated
as life.

Creation is therefore unknowable from an objective frame
of reference. The...effects (not causes) provide the underlying
properties of nature. How systems respond to change are
the only universal (behavioral) properties which span
/all three realms/ of the classical, quantum and living
natural systems.

And what's common to all three tells us how nature
and reality works.


> The above is an excellent and typical example of vague. "Greater"
> can be interpreted in numerous ways, "mysterious" is vague by definition.


But what if, from an objective view, uncertainty is the actual
source of Creation? A large interstellar cloud of gas and dust
disturbed enough for gravity to take over, and spontaneous
cyclic order emerges, stars and so on. Another way to say that
is a random disturbance to a random system is the ultimate
impetus of creation and evolution

The duality of nature (uncertainty) [complexity] is the sign
of creation. The duality of light is merely a single example
of a more general duality, Emergence exists at the
classical/quantum interface.

All visible order exists where the rules of operation (static)
and freedom of interaction (chaotic) are at simultaneous
maximums.

static > emergent < chaotic

matter > light < energy
solid > liquid < gas
rules > democracy < freedom
genetics > selection < mutation

knowable > emergent < knowable

Einstein > Darwin < Heisenberg



> If God is defined as whatever is "greater and mysterious" then I wouldn't
> argue whether it exists, but would only note that pointlessly attaching
> a name to it doesn't make it interesting or consequential.
>


Shouldn't a higher level, by definition, be interesting and consequential
and more so than any other knowledge?

You're also assuming it's possible to have direct knowledge
or understanding of a higher form of existence. It isn't possible.
The properties of emergence make that point clear. The following
is the universal duality which pervades nature and reality.

From the perspective of the whole, parts will tend to look
chaotic and unquantifiable.
From the perspective of the parts, the emergent properties
will appear irreducible and largely mysterious.

Emergence
From Wikipedia,

"The plausibility of strong emergence is questioned by some as
contravening our usual understanding of physics.
Mark A. Bedau observes:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably
like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward
causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the
aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers
would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only
indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism.
Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that
emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence




"'Wonder -- is not precisely Knowing
And not precisely Knowing not --
A beautiful but bleak condition
He has not lived who has not felt "



Jonathan



s



> Charles
>

[jonathan]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:brke15...@mid.individual.net...

> jonathan wrote:
>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>> and the Universe.
>>
>

> It might be a bit foolish but making it out to be a claim to a God-like
> knowledge is stretching things somewhat.

>
>> Science refutes the concept of God
>> by claiming to be a God.
>>
>

> Where does science claim to be a God?
>



Are we gnats?


"A Smaller, could not be perturbed
The Summer Gnat displays
Unconscious that his single Fleet
Do not comprise the skies"


Nature is a nearly infinitely nested hierarchy of emergent order.

http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#1.3

Whether its a gnat living in their own little universe, or any other
level of complexity trapped within its knowable sphere.
This is true spanning microbes to microsoft, so to speak.

Assuming this sequence of ever higher levels of complexity
STOPS at our level, and goes no higher, directly contradicts
all the available direct evidence. Gravity and evolution
are relentless hill climbers.

AND assuming it stops at our level suggests we are at
the pinnacle of the universe, and are therefore Gods.

If we are to let the evidence and logic guide our
conclusion, then either science claims we are Gods
or a God exists.

There exists no evidence to claim a third possibility.
Except simply "I don't know".

There must exist a God that is wondrous, creative and
represents the ideal towards which we should aspire
- the next emergent level. If the universe and evolution
are to make sense.

For instance, lets put gods in more tangible terms.
Let's take the Internet, and a billion minds connecting
in real time, a sort of 'collective intelligence or wisdom'
emerges that's as amorphous as the wind, but as
powerful as the sea.

Wisdom, or emergent properties guide the whole
into the future. Predictability in natural systems
only exists for the most probable final state
- the ideal possible.

Imagining the concept of God (ideal) [utopia]
should be the obsession of science. Not what
came 'first', but what /should/ come last.
Then, and only then, can we draw a rational
and predictable path into the future for us
to follow.



Jonathan




"Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



Poems by E Dickinson



s





> [...]
>
>

[jonathan]

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YtydnbkbUqgsrsjO...@earthlink.com...

> On 4/20/2014 8:47 AM, jonathan wrote:
>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>> and the Universe.
>

> No, that's not true. Your proposition fails for much the same reason as
> Pascal's Wager.
>
> There may well be *something* greater than ourselves in this Universe. I
> regard that as more likely than the alternative.
>
> But it may not be the Judeo-Christian concept of God.

And are you sure you understand their philosophical conception
of God? God is only known by analogy, that the observed
properties of the universe reflect the properties of God
as a painting reflects the original.

> There are many other possibilities of "intelligences greater than
> ourselves."
>

And wouldn't each and every one of them share the properties
normally given to Gods?

> For example, in his original TV series "Cosmos" (1979), Carl Sagan
> imagined an ultra-advanced extraterrestrial civilization thousands of
> light-years from Earth, populated by some very exotic aliens:
>
>
> Civilization:
> Type: 2.3 R [10^7 times more knowledge than we do]
> Interstellar civilization, no planetary communities;
> energy sources include 1,504 supergiants, OV, BV, AV stars and pulsars.
> Civilization age: 192 million Earth years.
> Local Group polylogue.
>
> Biology:
> C, H, O, Be, Fe, Ge, He.
> Metal-chelated organic semiconductors, types various.
> Genomes: 6 x 10^17.
> Cryogenic superconducting electrovores with neutron crystal dense packing
> and modular starminers; polytaxic.
>

That's like saying wisdom = six letters with two syllables!
We'd have as much in common with them as an animal
has to us. Two different levels of complexity.


"The Brain is just the weight of God
For -- Lift them -- Pound for Pound
And they will differ -- if they do
As Syllable from Sound."

>
> Would such aliens be gods?
> No.
> But they might as well be.
>

Do you really think it makes any logical sense
or agrees with the evidence of nature, that
evolution would stop at our level?

What would make anyone think that's the case?
What evidence, what logic?

Put these two pictures side by side and then
try to tell me there's nothing greater out there.

http://tinyurl.com/l5p82u7

http://tinyurl.com/k47lhch


Which picture shows a neuron, and which picture
shows 20 million galaxies?


"O Nature, and O soul of man! how far beyond all utterance
are your linked analogies! not the smallest atom stirs or lives
on matter, but has its cunning duplicate in mind."

~ Herman Melville




Jonathan


>
> --
> Steven L.
>

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:14:50 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Put these two pictures side by side and then
>try to tell me there's nothing greater out there.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/l5p82u7
>
>http://tinyurl.com/k47lhch
>
>
>Which picture shows a neuron, and which picture
>shows 20 million galaxies?

The "Mpc/h really gives it away. Just sayin'.

[R. Dean]

On 4/20/2014 8:23 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:11:21 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:42:06 -0400, Roger Shrubber
>> <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:40:41 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>>

>>>>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing greater
>>>>>> than ourselves which will always remain mysterious is essentially
>>>>>> a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature and the Universe.
>>>

>>>>>> Science refutes the concept of God by claiming to be a God.

>>>>> It's true, envy is the psychological motive behind atheism, no
>>>>> matter
>>>
>>>>> how much they babble about "evidence".
>>>

>>>> I'm not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be envying as an
>>>> atheist. God? Not a job I'd want. No surprises, nothing to learn.
>>>> Believers? Some of them seem happy enough in their beliefs, but no
>>>> more so than plenty of atheists I know.
>>>>
>>>> Trying to find psychological motivations for other people's beliefs
>>>> is a wild indulgence in the sort of just-so stories that
>>>> creationists love to critique in others.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that for those who begin with the belief
>>> that there is a greater power, some confuse
>>> A) not beginning with such a belief with
>>> B) beginning with a belief that there is not a greater power.
>>
>> I say C) beginning with knowledge that there is a greater power, and
>> suppressing it out of envy.
>
>
> And how do you know other people suppress it out of envy?
> Self-evident? Mind reading? God told you?
>
No, God doesn't speak to man - never did.

[R. Dean]

> Except, I was raised to believe in a higher power but not
> in a way that emphasized mindless acceptance.
> And despite that overriding presumption of a higher power,
> there was neither knowledge or evidence of such. I would
> have liked to have believed. Life would have been easier.
> Your presumption about me does not fit.
>
>> Human psychology is not difficult, because humans are not as different
>> from one another as they like to think. All one has to do is observe
>> one's own mind, and you can bet that most other people have had the
>> same thoughts.
>
> Well some humans yes. It's unlikely you are I are unique.
> But there's more diversity than you suggest. There's more
> than one mold. This is obvious on many fronts. There are
> born leaders, born followers, born artists, born scientists,
> born engineers, born entrepreneurs. Your assertion that we
> are the same is ultimately dubious even if there are many
> others that are like you and like me, they are not the
> same others.
>
Engineers are not born, engineers are made through study and
experience. It takes five years for some and 7 years for
others who chose to become Masters of Science in engineering.
>
>>>
>>> The subset of believers who presume atheists match
>>> to B) then view atheists as fundamentally arrogant.
>>>
>>> There's much to be said for abandoning oneself to the
>>> will of a higher power. I understand that's why some
>>> men get married.
>>
>> Heh ;-)
>>
>

[R. Dean]

On 4/21/2014 7:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> jonathan wrote:

>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>> and the Universe.
>>
>

> It might be a bit foolish but making it out to be a claim to a God-like
> knowledge is stretching things somewhat.

>
>> Science refutes the concept of God
>> by claiming to be a God.
>>
>

> Where does science claim to be a God?
>

It doesn't! Some people might give science some of
the attributes of God.
>
> [...]
>
>

[Roger Shrubber]

Sorry, some are born engineers and this has little to do
with their getting degrees from schools of engineering.
This does not say that schools of engineering cannot
also create engineers from those who are not naturals.

Engineering as I mean it is simply applying science and
theory to practical effect. There are self-trained car
mechanics that are in effect brilliant engineers. There
are farmers that are brilliant engineers. And I claim
that some people are simply born that way, which includes
being the type to take things apart to learn how they
work, but also having the aptitude to put them back
together.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:52:14 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

There are many people who say otherwise, not only wrt to "never" in
the past, but also "never" in the present. I don't know if Kalkidas
is one of them, but he writes as if he might be, which is why I asked.

[ed wolf]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:47:08 PM UTC+2, jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> and the Universe.

I guess I can catch the drift, but for any sentence
to be logical, its elements should be defined and clear
in their meaning.
"Creation", "believe", "great", "ourselves",
"always", "mysterious", "God-like Knowledge",
"Nature", "Universe" all lack (single)definitions
and clarity.

Translated into something more stringent it would be:
"Claiming there are no unknowable factors
in the world is oxymoronic"
Is this what you where trying to write?
If yes, why? And if yes, why didn't you?

> Science refutes the concept of God
> by claiming to be a God.

Which "science" "refuted" which "concept of God"
and claimed "to be a God"?

science
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a
body of facts or truths systematically arranged
and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge
gained by systematic study.

Any of 1-5 make a poor subject to refute or claim
anything. (You must be thinking of mad scientists
from the Marvel Universe.) But "science" is what you
wrote, and so it all disappears in a puff of logic.
If you want to show "the logic behind belief.."
you must try harder.
But "logical belief" comes from a definition of
"oxymoron", anyway.
ed wolf


A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows
that faith does not prove anything.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[Nick Roberts]

In message <v4adnTbJ074L1cjO...@giganews.com>

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kalkidas wrote:
>
> > I don't think how one was raised has much to do with it. Every soul
> > knows there is a power greater than oneself supervising the world.
> > This is inherent knowledge, not mere belief or faith.
>

> There are two distinct claims of knowledge there.
> That there is a greater power supervising the world,
> and that everyone knows it.
> I know that one of those claims is false.
> You'll then have to see why I don't necessarily accept
> your other one. Or I could take you literally and that
> would just leave me soulless.

You're obviously insufficiently familiar with Kalkidas-speak. The True
situation is that your soul knows it but you are too
stupid/selfish/scared/atheistic to pay any attention to what your soul
is telling you.

Or maybe Kalkidas is just blowing smoke again.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:52:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

<snip>

>...God doesn't speak to man - never did.

So the Bible is wrong?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:57:51 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

>On 4/21/2014 7:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

>> jonathan wrote:

>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>>> and the Universe.

>> It might be a bit foolish but making it out to be a claim to a God-like
>> knowledge is stretching things somewhat.

>>> Science refutes the concept of God
>>> by claiming to be a God.

>> Where does science claim to be a God?

>It doesn't!

No, it doesn't, and your greatest assurance of that is the
fact that jonathan says it does.

>Some people might give science some of
>the attributes of God.

That's called "scientism" and is generally considered to be
a Bad Thing. Jonathan seems to think that science is
identical to what was practiced by the Scientific People in
Bester's "The Stars My Destination" (or if you prefer,
"Tiger, Tiger").

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:45:14 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Nick Roberts
<tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>:

>In message <v4adnTbJ074L1cjO...@giganews.com>
> Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think how one was raised has much to do with it. Every soul
>> > knows there is a power greater than oneself supervising the world.
>> > This is inherent knowledge, not mere belief or faith.
>>
>> There are two distinct claims of knowledge there.
>> That there is a greater power supervising the world,
>> and that everyone knows it.
>> I know that one of those claims is false.
>> You'll then have to see why I don't necessarily accept
>> your other one. Or I could take you literally and that
>> would just leave me soulless.
>
>You're obviously insufficiently familiar with Kalkidas-speak. The True
>situation is that your soul knows it but you are too
>stupid/selfish/scared/atheistic to pay any attention to what your soul
>is telling you.
>
>Or maybe Kalkidas is just blowing smoke again.

That seems redundant.

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:47:08 AM UTC-6, jonathan wrote:
> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>
> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>
> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>
> and the Universe.

Most things are bigger than we are.

>
>
>
> Science refutes the concept of God
>
> by claiming to be a God.
>
>
>

Science ignores the concept of God, because it is untestable.

Science is not a belief system, it is an evidence-based system of
knowledge. So far, God arguments are all arguments of ignorance.


>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> "I dwell in Possibility
>
> A fairer House than Prose
>
> More numerous of Windows
>
> Superior for Doors
>
> Of Visitors the fairest
>
> For Occupation -- This
>
> The spreading wide of narrow Hands
>
> To gather Paradise"
>
>
>
>
>
> s

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>
> >greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>
> >is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>
> >and the Universe.
>
> >
>

> >Science refutes the concept of God
>
> >by claiming to be a God.
>
>
>

> It's true, envy is the psychological motive behind atheism, no matter
>
> how much they babble about "evidence".

jonathan is not your buddy Kalkidas, because you shave your head, dress
in a sheet, and make an ass of yourself before a pantheon of pagan
gods. The idols that you bow before are false gods.
Your gods are jonathan's devil.

-John

[eridanus]

yeah, a lot of them; the earth, a supervolcano, a hurricane, a big
meteorite, an atomic bomb, if any of them catch you too near, etc.
The heat of sun, if you are near it, or the cold of the space if you
are too far away from the sun, and the central heating of your space
craft gets wrong; Jupiter is bigger than us, or the atmosphere
of Venus that can bake you in a matter of seconds. The charging hypo
can be bigger than you, if you are too near him.
Eri

[eridanus]

El martes, 22 de abril de 2014 19:39:45 UTC+1, John Stockwell escribió:

> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:47:08 AM UTC-6, jonathan wrote:
>
> > When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> > greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> > is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> > and the Universe.
> Most things are bigger than we are.
> > Science refutes the concept of God
> > by claiming to be a God.
>
> Science ignores the concept of God, because it is untestable.
> Science is not a belief system, it is an evidence-based system of
> knowledge. So far, God arguments are all arguments of ignorance.

In more simpler words... science is some philosophy applied to material
events and facts. We try to use some logic to explain the material
facts we observe in nature, directly from our eyes, or through some
complex instruments, like telescopes, microscopes, spectrometers,
and other devices, like math calculations

It seems to me that god is not observable with our eyes, not through
microscopes, or telescopes, not with spectrometers, and is not even
accessible to mathematical calculations or analysis.

Then, we cannot apply any science to know god.

Then, where is the origin of god? It is an implanted meme in the
brain of some people since childhood. To believe in god is not different
than to speak our mother tongue, or to believe in fairies, or in devils,
or trolls, or ogres. God is a part of our folklore... and that is all.
We can invent nice speeches to prove that ogres, or flying dragons exist,
in spite that they are so rarely seem, than when someone tells us he has
seen a flying dragon, or an UFO or other monsters, we tend to think he is
laying to us. He wants our attention... even he love our regards of
incredulity, or our amazing awe signs in our face, etc.

Others, like preachers are going well telling nice things to their customers
and they reward him with some money. Mostly preachers are condemning other
people to eternal hell; other people that are not present in their church.
These are the rules of the game for preachers.

Eri

[Melzzzzz]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> El martes, 22 de abril de 2014 19:39:45 UTC+1, John Stockwell
> escribió:
> > On Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:47:08 AM UTC-6, jonathan wrote:
> >
> > > When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
> > > greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
> > > is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
> > > and the Universe.
> > Most things are bigger than we are.
> > > Science refutes the concept of God
> > > by claiming to be a God.
> >
> > Science ignores the concept of God, because it is untestable.
> > Science is not a belief system, it is an evidence-based system of
> > knowledge. So far, God arguments are all arguments of ignorance.
>
> In more simpler words... science is some philosophy applied to
> material events and facts. We try to use some logic to explain the
> material facts we observe in nature, directly from our eyes, or
> through some complex instruments, like telescopes, microscopes,
> spectrometers, and other devices, like math calculations
>
> It seems to me that god is not observable with our eyes, not through
> microscopes, or telescopes, not with spectrometers, and is not even
> accessible to mathematical calculations or analysis.
>
> Then, we cannot apply any science to know god.

Science is investigation of nature as it is,
disregarding gods existence/non existence.

>
> Then, where is the origin of god? It is an implanted meme in the
> brain of some people since childhood. To believe in god is not
> different than to speak our mother tongue, or to believe in fairies,
> or in devils, or trolls, or ogres. God is a part of our folklore...

Of course. That is why there are so many religions myths, legends
and stories. Once in the future Christian and all other myths and
legends will become just myths and legends.


--
Click OK to continue...

[eridanus]

Ok

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:43:14 PM UTC+1, John Stockwell wrote:

>
> jonathan is not your buddy Kalkidas, because you shave your head, dress
> in a sheet, and make an ass of yourself before a pantheon of pagan
> gods. The idols that you bow before are false gods.
> Your gods are jonathan's devil.
>

> -John

That would surprise me. Jonathan seems to have some rather eclectic pan-deism.
His heroine wasn't affiliated with any specific church, but had leanings
towards Emerson's transcendentalism. That wild make it consistent with
most religions, asian ones in particular.

[jillery]

In the category of anti-vaxxer posters:

[James Beck]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:27:22 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:52:14 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>
><snip>
>
>>...God doesn't speak to man - never did.
>
>So the Bible is wrong?

Apple is currently on version 4.2.0.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Melzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:52:14 -0400

There are many "visions","dreams", ...
People who had them are called prophets...
but there are also false prophets ...
Who would tell difference ;)

[Inez]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:21:15 PM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

> On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:02:06 PM UTC+1, Inez wrote:
>
>
>
> can be described to be "like el Dorado" or "like Paradise"
>
>
>

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado,_Arkansas
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > or a beautiful woman Helen-of-Troy like (now, how do I turn this into
>
> > > a chat up line .. :o))
>

> > > That is, by having most or all of the attributes that are in common
>
> > > descriptions that that entity is said to have
>
> > > (note, I don't consider "existence" an attribute)
>
> >
> > So if God doesn't exist, then other things that don't exist must be God-like?
>
>
> Hah! If your mind works in classical logic, then you are spot on. In
>
> fact, something stronger would follow: If God doesn't exist, then all other
>
> things that don't exist are God-like. That's because in that approach,
>
> all non-existing things have exactly the same properties, i.e. none.
>
>
>
> Now, for me that's a good reason to argue that classical logic isn't a
>
> good candidate to describe our reasoning capacity, at least not all of
>
> it. Id say we understand perfectly that the following sentences are
>
> true:
>
> Sherlock Holmes was a detective.
>
> Sherlock Holmes is not Inspector Morse
>
> Sherlock Holmes lived in London
>
> Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Conan Doyle
>
>
>
> and the following are false
>
> Sherlock Holmes was a football player for Arsenal
>
> Sherlock Holmes is the same as the Easter Bunny
>
> Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Raymond Chandler
>
>
>
> which means we can reason abut non-existing
>
> objects, distinguish them from other non-existing
>
> objects, and also compare them to existing objects.
>
You are by and large right, but it's easier to make these arguments about Sherlock Holmes than God. The term "God" is intensely defined in different ways by different people. Johnathan requires only that God be mysterious and greater than ourselves, and even there I'm not sure what the term "greater" is supposed to mean other than some sort of foggy but positive value judgment. And would God cease to be if someone wrote an expose' biography to deprive Him of his mystery?

> Ok, serious hobby horse alert here, but I just got a paper
>
> accepted that asks the important question if Dumbledore
>
> is gay, and work on another that analyses the riveting
>
> question of the age of Holme's brother....
>
>
>
> But one influential theory in that field comes from
>
> Ed Zalta. Details are here:
>
> http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/pretense.pdf
>
>
>
> but the basic idea is that abstract objects, of which fictional
>
> objects are a subgroup, are completely defined by the set of
>
> sentences (description) that introduce them. They don't have
>
> properties, rather they "encode" them. A god-like object
>
> can then be any existing or non-existing object that encodes
>
> (is described as having) the same properties as those that
>
> the descriptions say God has - where s/he exists or not.

Ah, but whose description? There's the thing

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/21/14 10:50 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>
>> The first [question] is whether there is some "supernatural"
>> force - supernatural in the sense that it is beyond what we
>> understand as "natural". Ruling out the
>> very possibility of that is what I consider foolish.
>
> How about ruling out the meaningfulness of such a thing. Ten years
> ago, dark energy, shape-memory alloys, and 50-ton crystals were all
> beyond what I understood as "natural". Now, with discoveries by
> others and learning on my part, my understanding of nature includes
> them all. In fact, my whole life has been an expanding of my
> understanding of nature. Calling something "supernatural" simply
> because I don't know about it makes no sense to me, any more than it
> would make sense to call dark energy "supernatural" ten years ago but
> not now.

So how do you define supernatural?

>
> You are probably thinking now that that's not really what you meant by
> "supernatural". But if not that, then what? Defining it in terms of
> other people's understanding -- even if that means the understanding
> of all people for all time -- is not a qualitative improvement. I
> reject the notion that the human mind should be the defining feature
> of "supernatural".
>
> Or perhaps you did intend exactly and literally what you said. In
> that case, I agree that ruling out the possibility of the
> supernatural is foolish. Just as foolish would be to abstain from
> seeking out the "supernatural", understanding it, and by so doing,
> destroying its supernatural quality.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

How do you know that?

[alias Ernest Major]

To split the difference: Jonathan is also rather keen on the Catholic
Encyclopaedia. I have inferred that he is a heterodox (pantheist)
Catholic. I wouldn't care to guess how ecumenical he is.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

That's actually a fair question. To claim that X didn't happen
requires supporting evidence just as much as to claim that X did
happen, and the burden of support falls on the claimants in both
cases.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/23/14 12:38 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/21/14 10:50 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>
>>> The first [question] is whether there is some "supernatural"
>>> force - supernatural in the sense that it is beyond what we
>>> understand as "natural". Ruling out the
>>> very possibility of that is what I consider foolish.
>>
>> How about ruling out the meaningfulness of such a thing. Ten years
>> ago, dark energy, shape-memory alloys, and 50-ton crystals were all
>> beyond what I understood as "natural". Now, with discoveries by
>> others and learning on my part, my understanding of nature includes
>> them all. In fact, my whole life has been an expanding of my
>> understanding of nature. Calling something "supernatural" simply
>> because I don't know about it makes no sense to me, any more than it
>> would make sense to call dark energy "supernatural" ten years ago but
>> not now.
>
> So how do you define supernatural?

1. Belonging to classes of phenomena -- such as ghosts, precognition,
unexplained healing, etc. -- classified as "supernatural" by tradition.

2. Outside of nature; i.e., nonexistent.

For purely philosophical discussions, definition 2 obtains.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:22:40 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by James Beck
<jdbec...@yahoo.com>:

>On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:27:22 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:52:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

>>>...God doesn't speak to man - never did.

>>So the Bible is wrong?

>Apple is currently on version 4.2.0.

....and a plethora of other irrelevancies.

But my question was relevant; R. Dean's assertion directly
contradicts several statements in the Bible, most (or
perhaps all; I misremember) from Genesis.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:09:16 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>In the category of anti-vaxxer posters:

>>The charging hypo
>>can be bigger than you, if you are too near him.

Sounds like the hypos used for gamma globulin shots when I
was in Vietnam...huge and ominous.

[eridanus]

problems of orthography. what a drama.
eri

[jillery]

That ain't the problem.

[jonathan]

"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
news:dVL5v.20373$Nt....@fx20.fr7...

In the name of the Static
And of the Chaotic
And of the Emergent, amen!



s



>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

[jonathan]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lj1a04$p7f$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/20/14 5:47 AM, jonathan wrote:

>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>> and the Universe.
>

> Not at all. Such a perspective could easily be a provisional conclusion
> drawn from an assessment of the available evidence (it is in my case).
>


Let's talk about the available evidence then?

My hobby holds that evolution is a process
universal to the physical, living and spiritual realms.

Each of these realms have their respective emergent properties.
For instance the emergent property of gravity for physical
systems, emergent natural-selection for biology and
emergent wisdom for spiritual systems.

Each of these share a common property. Which is to
r e l e n t l e s s l y organize, hill-climb or explore
respectively.

So what's the available evidence such a hierarchy
of evolved emergent order, that spans from
quarks-to-quasars and microbes-to-microsoft, stops
at our level and goes no higher?

If you conclude that this is 'all there is', that means
we are gods, and this is heaven!!!

If you conclude there is 'something greater', all
the better!!!

Given the pervasive character of emergent reality
and the unimaginable scope of the universe, to think
humanity is the pinnacle or 'center' of the evolved
universe just doesn't pass a laugh test imho.

It should require a great deal of evidence to remain
agnostic~

>> Science refutes the concept of God
>> by claiming to be a God.
>

> Utter nonsense.
>





s

[Walter Bushell]

In article <3q5gl9prerorbsshb...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:09:16 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >In the category of anti-vaxxer posters:
>
> >>The charging hypo
> >>can be bigger than you, if you are too near him.
>
> Sounds like the hypos used for gamma globulin shots when I
> was in Vietnam...huge and ominous.

Oh, I wacky parsed that as "charging hippo" which would be bigger than
me and most of the people I know.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:54:06 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <3q5gl9prerorbsshb...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:09:16 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >In the category of anti-vaxxer posters:
>>
>> >>The charging hypo
>> >>can be bigger than you, if you are too near him.
>>
>> Sounds like the hypos used for gamma globulin shots when I
>> was in Vietnam...huge and ominous.
>
>Oh, I wacky parsed that as "charging hippo" which would be bigger than
>me and most of the people I know.

How many people do you know bigger than a charging hippo?

[Robert Camp]

On 4/23/14 5:39 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lj1a04$p7f$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/20/14 5:47 AM, jonathan wrote:
>
>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>>> and the Universe.
>>
>> Not at all. Such a perspective could easily be a provisional conclusion
>> drawn from an assessment of the available evidence (it is in my case).
>
> Let's talk about the available evidence then?

You say this, but then go on to talk about personal flights of fancy
based upon concepts you don't understand.

> My hobby holds that evolution is a process
> universal to the physical, living and spiritual realms.
>
> Each of these realms have their respective emergent properties.
> For instance the emergent property of gravity for physical
> systems, emergent natural-selection for biology and
> emergent wisdom for spiritual systems.
>
> Each of these share a common property. Which is to
> r e l e n t l e s s l y organize, hill-climb or explore
> respectively.
>
> So what's the available evidence such a hierarchy
> of evolved emergent order, that spans from
> quarks-to-quasars and microbes-to-microsoft, stops
> at our level and goes no higher?

Umm...42?

> If you conclude that this is 'all there is', that means
> we are gods, and this is heaven!!!

Of course it means no such thing, but then you have great difficulty
with reason.

> If you conclude there is 'something greater', all
> the better!!!

Nor does it follow that such a thing would be "better," whatever that
might mean.

> Given the pervasive character of emergent reality
> and the unimaginable scope of the universe, to think
> humanity is the pinnacle or 'center' of the evolved
> universe just doesn't pass a laugh test imho.

On the other hand, your strawmen continue to be exceptionally funny.

> It should require a great deal of evidence to remain
> agnostic~

It would, were what you're offering actual evidence, but that would
entail you being able to distinguish evidence from fantasy.

[numerous]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>
>
>When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>and the Universe.
>

>Science refutes the concept of God
>by claiming to be a God.

Well even this science-God cannot explain why it exists itself or why
it has the properties it has, this will always remain a mystery.
Causality, which is one of the cornerstones of scientific explanation,
fails totally when it reaches the ultimate uncaused cause named
absolute reality.

Or to put it in another way, seen from a NULL perspective reality -
and thereby eventually every part of it, even the smallest particle -
is an unexplainable miraculous mystery.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <e8qgl9t5kdiubrto5...@4ax.com>,

Well my statement is true even if there are no such people, and maybe
baby hippos charge or AFAIK there may be pygmy hippos.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:55:28 AM UTC-4, numerous wrote:
>
>
>
> Well even this science-God cannot explain why it exists itself or why
>
> it has the properties it has, this will always remain a mystery.
>
> Causality, which is one of the cornerstones of scientific explanation,
>
> fails totally when it reaches the ultimate uncaused cause named
>
> absolute reality.
>
>
>
> Or to put it in another way, seen from a NULL perspective reality -
>
> and thereby eventually every part of it, even the smallest particle -
>
> is an unexplainable miraculous mystery.

There is no end to explanations or to "why" questions. That's true. As long as you don't try to get from that more or less self-evident claim to some claim about a personal God, then I won't disagree with you. In fact, if you want to take some idea of the infinite limit of all explanations and name that "God", even then I won't disagree with you, as long as you realize that that "God" has nothing much in common with the personal gods religious people pray to. So maybe it would be better to name such a "God" "42" instead of "God."

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:33:51 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>

wrote:

>In article <e8qgl9t5kdiubrto5...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:54:06 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3q5gl9prerorbsshb...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:09:16 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >In the category of anti-vaxxer posters:
>> >>
>> >> >>The charging hypo
>> >> >>can be bigger than you, if you are too near him.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like the hypos used for gamma globulin shots when I
>> >> was in Vietnam...huge and ominous.
>> >
>> >Oh, I wacky parsed that as "charging hippo" which would be bigger than
>> >me and most of the people I know.
>>
>>
>> How many people do you know bigger than a charging hippo?
>
>Well my statement is true even if there are no such people, and maybe
>baby hippos charge or AFAIK there may be pygmy hippos.

I am grateful you didn't mention hippos with charge cards.

[walksalone]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pe6il99nv73h9cuju...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:33:51 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <e8qgl9t5kdiubrto5...@4ax.com>,
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip & piggybacking.

>>> How many people do you know bigger than a charging hippo?
>>
>>Well my statement is true even if there are no such people, and maybe
>>baby hippos charge or AFAIK there may be pygmy hippos.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/harry-the-pygmy-hippo_n_
1388403.html>

> I am grateful you didn't mention hippos with charge cards.

Jillery, haven't found that one. yet.

walksalone who, as one can tell, is bored. Que sera sera.

No myth of miraculous creation is so marvelous as the fact of man's
evolution.
Robert Briffault (1876-1948)Rational Education ,1930]

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:

>
> >> How many people do you know bigger than a charging hippo?
>
> >
>
> >Well my statement is true even if there are no such people, and maybe
> >baby hippos charge or AFAIK there may be pygmy hippos.
>

> I am grateful you didn't mention hippos with charge cards.

Yeah, that would have been hippo-critical.
Here is one:
http://www.cellularoutfitter.com/altPics/handy-pets-universal-media-mobile-phone-holder-hippo-33952-2.jpg

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:01:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:05:52 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>
>>
>> >> How many people do you know bigger than a charging hippo?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well my statement is true even if there are no such people, and maybe
>> >baby hippos charge or AFAIK there may be pygmy hippos.
>>
>
>> I am grateful you didn't mention hippos with charge cards.
>
>Yeah, that would have been hippo-critical.

....or hypo-allergenic.

>Here is one:
>http://www.cellularoutfitter.com/altPics/handy-pets-universal-media-mobile-phone-holder-hippo-33952-2.jpg

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:08:32 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:pe6il99nv73h9cuju...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:33:51 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e8qgl9t5kdiubrto5...@4ax.com>,
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>snip & piggybacking.
>>>> How many people do you know bigger than a charging hippo?
>>>
>>>Well my statement is true even if there are no such people, and maybe
>>>baby hippos charge or AFAIK there may be pygmy hippos.
>
>
><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/harry-the-pygmy-hippo_n_
>1388403.html>
>
>> I am grateful you didn't mention hippos with charge cards.
>
>Jillery, haven't found that one. yet.

That didn't stop Walter, either.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:28:15 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 4/20/14 11:40 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:47:08 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>
> >> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>
> >> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>
> >> and the Universe.
>
> >>
>
> >> Science refutes the concept of God
>
> >> by claiming to be a God.
>
> >
>

> > It's true, envy is the psychological motive behind atheism, no matter
>
> > how much they babble about "evidence".
>
>
>

> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>
>
> Envy of whom, exactly? You might want to believe you are enviable, but
>
> you aren't.

>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>
> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
>
> found it." - Vaclav Havel

He is referring to the fact that Atheists today secretly admire the pre-1859 Victorian Clerics and Theists----the way they operated back in the day, allowing no dissent, owning the microphone, etc.etc.

While said Atheists swore they would never operate the same way, they do, in fact, operate the exact same way, allowing no dissent while owning the microphone, etc.etc.

Ray

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> He is referring to the fact that Atheists today secretly admire the pre-1859 Victorian Clerics and Theists----the way they operated back in the day, allowing no dissent, owning the microphone, etc.etc.
>
>
>
> While said Atheists swore they would never operate the same way, they do, in fact, operate the exact same way, allowing no dissent while owning the microphone, etc.etc.
>
>
>
> Ray

Welcome back, Ray. You are more than free to present your dissenting views in here. Nobody will cut off your microphone. There's a difference between disagreeing with you and even mocking you, on the one hand, and not allowing you to express dissent, on the other. Your views are yours to express as you will, without interference.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Bill's reply actually supports what I said. He invites me to keep posting here at Talk.Origins while knowing full well that I (and others like me) have no voice in science, law, education, and media. The Atheists, like I said, secretly admire the way pre-1859 Victorian Clerics and Theists conducted their business.

Ray

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ray, nobody is suppressing you here or anywhere else. Disagreeing with you is not censorship. Start a blog, run for office, get yourself on one of the abundant evangelical Christian television channels, or e-publish your definitive refutation of Darwiniam. If you can't get your message out there, there's nobody to blame but yourself.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:57:49 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:38:33 PM UTC-4, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:22:40 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:13:11 PM UTC-4, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>
> > > > He is referring to the fact that Atheists today secretly admire the pre-1859 Victorian Clerics and Theists----the way they operated back in the day, allowing no dissent, owning the microphone, etc.etc.
> > > >
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > While said Atheists swore they would never operate the same way, they do, in fact, operate the exact same way, allowing no dissent while owning the microphone, etc.etc.
> > > >

>

> > > Welcome back, Ray. You are more than free to present your dissenting views in here. Nobody will cut off your microphone. There's a difference between disagreeing with you and even mocking you, on the one hand, and not allowing you to express dissent, on the other. Your views are yours to express as you will, without interference.
> > >
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bill's reply actually supports what I said. He invites me to keep posting here at Talk.Origins while knowing full well that I (and others like me) have no voice in science, law, education, and media. The Atheists, like I said, secretly admire the way pre-1859 Victorian Clerics and Theists conducted their business.
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ray
>
>
>
> Ray, nobody is suppressing you here or anywhere else. Disagreeing with you is not censorship. Start a blog, run for office, get yourself on one of the abundant evangelical Christian television channels, or e-publish your definitive refutation of Darwiniam. If you can't get your message out there, there's nobody to blame but yourself.
>

Once again, Bill's second rebuttal supports my initial observations of fact. I must blog (like millions of others with no audience) or become a stooge for some moronic YEC televangelist, or e-publish (the same as blogging) in order to kid myself that I have a voice.

Run for office in order to be heard?

Since all politicians are liars, and completely corrupt, wholly in the pocket of their big donors, your suggestion clearly presupposes lack of a microphone.

Ray

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/23/14 12:38 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 4/21/14 10:50 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The first [question] is whether there is some "supernatural"
>>>> force - supernatural in the sense that it is beyond what we
>>>> understand as "natural". Ruling out the
>>>> very possibility of that is what I consider foolish.
>>>
>>> How about ruling out the meaningfulness of such a thing. Ten years
>>> ago, dark energy, shape-memory alloys, and 50-ton crystals were all
>>> beyond what I understood as "natural". Now, with discoveries by
>>> others and learning on my part, my understanding of nature includes
>>> them all. In fact, my whole life has been an expanding of my
>>> understanding of nature. Calling something "supernatural" simply
>>> because I don't know about it makes no sense to me, any more than it
>>> would make sense to call dark energy "supernatural" ten years ago
>>> but not now.
>>
>> So how do you define supernatural?
>
> 1. Belonging to classes of phenomena -- such as ghosts, precognition,
> unexplained healing, etc. -- classified as "supernatural" by
> tradition.
> 2. Outside of nature; i.e., nonexistent.
>
> For purely philosophical discussions, definition 2 obtains.

Then I think there is a logic error in your definition - if it is outside
nature, then we cannot know whether it is existent or nonexistent. That's
the point I was trying to make earlier, that if we cannot see something, or
detect it using any natural methods - such methods being restricted by our
human limitations - it seems somewhat foolish to me that to assume that it
simply doesn't exist.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:22:48 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> Once again, Bill's second rebuttal supports my initial observations of fact. I must blog (like millions of others with no audience) or become a stooge for some moronic YEC televangelist, or e-publish (the same as blogging) in order to kid myself that I have a voice.

Well, I have to admit I'm not sure what you think it would mean for you to have a voice, then. Just because you cannot get people to agree with you does not mean that you don't have a voice; it just means your voice is saying things that others don't find convincing. What exactly do you want, in order to have a voice?

[jillery]

You have traded Mark's alleged logical error for one of your own. The
first sentence in the above paragraph logically conflicts with the
last sentence. It's arguable whether assuming something doesn't exist
is any more foolish than assuming it does.

[jonathan]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:lj9pub$744$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/23/14 5:39 PM, jonathan wrote:
>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lj1a04$p7f$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 4/20/14 5:47 AM, jonathan wrote:
>>
>>>> When it comes to Creation, to believe there's nothing
>>>> greater than ourselves which will always remain mysterious
>>>> is essentially a claim to a God-like knowledge of Nature
>>>> and the Universe.
>>>
>>> Not at all. Such a perspective could easily be a provisional conclusion
>>> drawn from an assessment of the available evidence (it is in my case).
>>
>> Let's talk about the available evidence then?
>
> You say this, but then go on to talk about personal flights of fancy based
> upon concepts you don't understand.
>

There's nothing in your reply that would give me the
slightest reason to think I'm wrong about anything.
So why waste the time replying if you've nothing
of substance to say?




s

[Kalkidas]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:34:36 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:22:48 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>
>> Once again, Bill's second rebuttal supports my initial observations of fact. I must blog (like millions of others with no audience) or become a stooge for some moronic YEC televangelist, or e-publish (the same as blogging) in order to kid myself that I have a voice.
>
>Well, I have to admit I'm not sure what you think it would mean for you to have a voice, then. Just because you cannot get people to agree with you does not mean that you don't have a voice; it just means your voice is saying things that others don't find convincing. What exactly do you want, in order to have a voice?

He said what he wants: "the pre-1859 Victorian Clerics and

Theists----the way they operated back in the day, allowing no dissent,
owning the microphone, etc.etc."

That's the situation that Ray wants, provided he is the chief of the
"Clerics and Theists".