Jesus is real - Believe in Him

[satur...@yahoo.com]

Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins. God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.

[Ken]

GFY

[Syd M.]

On Mar 23, 12:07 pm, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe in Jesus,

No.

PDW

[%]

believe in forgery

yes

[Smiler]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700, saturn_115 wrote:

> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins.

Evidence?

> God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal
> life in paradise after death.

Evidence?

> I can assure that He is real because of my experience

Evidence?

> and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.

If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will also feel better.

Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Yap]

On Mar 24, 12:07 am, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins. God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.

Idiot.

You bigots just want people to contribute tithers to your evil
organization since believing does nothing for each person.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <eb0af6f0-cfe4-4536...@googlegroups.com>,

Until you provide some valid evidence that this Jesus person ever
existed, why should I listen to you?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[kni...@baawa.com]

Your god had a part of itself murdered, so it could forgive it's
creation for being exactly the way it created them. Further it cursed
them forever for doing something it knew they would do and further
made a place where it's creation could be tortured forever for not
loving it and further, shockingly, this is an act of the purest love.

Not buying.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[John Locke]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), satur...@yahoo.com wrote:

>Believe in Jesus, the son of the God...
>
...and where the hell did this "son of the God" come from....space
dust, one-night stand with a naughty angel, Mrs. god ??? There's a
whole lot of problems with your screwball god/Jesus myth.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 23 Mar, 16:07, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins. God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.

What is real doesn't require belief.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 23, 9:07 am, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins. God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.

So, you got any logical, objective, verifiable evidence that a god -
*any* god - actually exists?

Get back to me when you do. Until then, kindly FOAD. This newsgroup
is not here for you to crash it and proselytize.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 23, 6:24 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700, saturn_115 wrote:

> > and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.
>
> If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will also feel better.

Yes, because your tummy will be full and happy. That's a feeling the
bible god just can't give you.

All Hail the FSM! Bless the holy incarnation of Carbonara!

[duke]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 23 Mar, 16:07, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins. God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.
>
>What is real doesn't require belief.

you can't see electricity.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Don Martin]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), satur...@yahoo.com wrote:

And your "experience" was what, exactly? And how may you be sure that
your "experience" was not a hallucination?

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Josef Balluch]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), satur...@yahoo.com wrote:

> [ snip ]


Previously refuted twaddle:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/f31cdbcb24e5aa6a/9a910c46ed84b414

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/8fc7e1d38de656de/2294f243dd346e5f

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/a35eb7cd2c822e4e/ab1931545829575a

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/591f0e860d771ae6/61bf38f9ea8bc061

[Smiler]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:55:48 -0700, SkyEyes wrote:

> On Mar 23, 6:24�pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700, saturn_115 wrote:
>
>> > and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.
>>
>> If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will also feel
>> better.
>
> Yes, because your tummy will be full and happy. That's a feeling the
> bible god just can't give you.
>
> All Hail the FSM! Bless the holy incarnation of Carbonara!
>

DAMN YOU HERETIC!!!! It's bless the holy _Bolognese_!
You Carbonarians haven't read the scriptures correctly.
And let us not forget his hymn: "On top of spaghetti."

May the FSM bless you with a touch of his noodly appendages.
Pasta Smiler,
Church of the Holy Bolognese.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <pan.2013.03.25....@JoeKing.com>,

Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:55:48 -0700, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:24�pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:44 -0700, saturn_115 wrote:
> >
> >> > and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.
> >>
> >> If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will also feel
> >> better.
> >
> > Yes, because your tummy will be full and happy. That's a feeling the
> > bible god just can't give you.
> >
> > All Hail the FSM! Bless the holy incarnation of Carbonara!
> >
>
> DAMN YOU HERETIC!!!! It's bless the holy _Bolognese_!
> You Carbonarians haven't read the scriptures correctly.
> And let us not forget his hymn: "On top of spaghetti."
>
> May the FSM bless you with a touch of his noodly appendages.
> Pasta Smiler,
> Church of the Holy Bolognese.

I love my spaghetti with shrimp scampi.

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 23, 12:07 pm, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins.

Fat load it did for *him*.

[%]

how do you know what it did for him ,
that's right you don't so , air head reply

[Budikka666]

On Mar 24, 10:21 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> you can't see electricity.

Yes you can, you lying piece of monumentally ignorant theist trash:
http://phys.org/news122897584.html

Duke Box's Shameless record of denying his god:

Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice:
Challenged to make a case for the existence of his god, cowardly Duke
Box ran away!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/1fca192c3d728ced?scoring=d&
1/5/13

Challenged yet again to provde evidence for his god - Duped RAN AWAY!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/6b639843fdbe4de6?scoring=d&
11/25/2012

Challenged or debate Bible contradictions, Dickhewad Duke-Box RAN
AWAY!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/23e20b2c87b8f0e1?scoring=d&
11/23/2012

Challenged to present his evidence for a creator god, Doofus RAN AWAY!
(Again, yawn).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8a0474ae8eb1ded?scoring=d&
9/29/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on abortion, Duke Box aborted!
http://tinyurl.com/9zgnxcb
9/9/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on the existence of Jesus, Duck & Run
Dipshit-For-Christ Duke RAN:
http://tinyurl.com/7mo8j5l
3/25/2012

In the massive slaughter of Usenet creationists, *every* *single*
*one* of whom fled because they could not post even on item of
positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a creation, Duped
was merely one of a host of creationists who RAN AWAY:
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
(3/18/2012)

Challenged to identify the two species on either side of this "missing
link" he lies exists, Dumbass Duke RAN AWAY!
http://tinyurl.com/7k2w6jc
(2/25/2012)

The Valentine's Day Massacre!
http://tinyurl.com/7mdvcep
(2/14/2012)

Duck & Run starts the new year in fine fettle - runs three times in
one day!
http://tinyurl.com/7eotebl
http://tinyurl.com/7b2waz8
http://tinyurl.com/7o23uvn

Dec 27th, 2011
Challenged to debate his 100% evidence for Jesus, Duck & Run ducked
and ran.
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Dec 26th, 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
*given* *a* *second* *chance* to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/7kawokn

Dec. 24th 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
challenged to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Sept. 5th 2011
asked for evidence for this Jesus of his. Duck & Run ducked & ran!
http://tinyurl.com/3brposl


On January 22, 2011, under the title: "Chicken Duke Has a Beautifully
Clean Pair of heels Does he Not?" We requested "Please provide
independent evidence - that is, from *outside* the Bible - that there
ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle working son of a god."
Chicken Duke couldn't do it.
http://tinyurl.com/4h6wdzm

Then there was this:
http://tinyurl.com/4dk7aoz
Jan 16, 2011, We requested this of Chicken Duke:
please provide *positive* *scientific* evidence for a creator or for a
creation, and post it right here in response to this message.
This was in response to his assertion that "Existence mandates
creation".
He ran away.

http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j
December 22nd 2010, in which Chicken Duke was challenged to support
statements he has made repeatedly on Usenet. Once again he ran from
them like the stinking diarrhea he is and hid behind an irrelevant and
dishoenst non-sequitur.

Prior to that he ran from a similar challenge just the day before(!):
He ran from a challenge to support his bullshit on December 21st,
2010:
http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j

And just the month before that:
http://tinyurl.com/2d5xtf3

November 20th 2010, he ran form these five simple questions rather
than support his god, thereby proving that he's nothing but another
limp Peter at the passion!

Here are the questions:
1. That the figure you quoted is true.
2. That they all believe in the *same* deity.
3. That this single deity actually exists
4. That this single deity actually created the universe
5. That this single deity is not a figment of their imagination
Here's my prediction at the time:
Time to show us that clean pair of heels again, Chicken Duck & Run.
Yep - he ran!

Claimed there are "gargantuan holes" in the Theory of Evolution and
then RAN when we called him on it:
http://tinyurl.com/27kf2da

The entire "Why There Isn't a God" series, started here:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9et

Duck & Run Ran Away - that is to say he failed 100% to actually get to
grips with the subject matter in any of those threads, his 'response'
consisting solely of chanting "no it isn't" or words to that effect.
He could offer no rebuttal, let alone refutation, he could not support
a single thing he claimed and he could offer zero rationale for his
position.

Let's face it, on this basis, he's run away from the entire "Why the
Holy Bible Lies" series, the entire "Why There Was No Flood" series,
and all of the the "Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid"
series so far.

Petition to Save the Hubble Telescope
Duck & Run makes yet another blind claim "Ok, you foot the bill to
keep looking at the same "sky" that's already been looked at" he
blathers, like there couldn't possibly be anything new to discover,
yet we proved him entirely wrong - again.
http://tinyurl.com/74p46nj

Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
http://tinyurl.com/2bx6jcf
Duck & Run, shrouded in cowardice, ran away.

The Inquisition
http://tinyurl.com/4pokf
Duck & Run didn't expect the inquisition....

Another Problem for Creation IDiots
http://tinyurl.com/3px9j
Duck & Run proved to be a creation IDiot.

Human aspect of Jesus
http://tinyurl.com/4w488
Duck and Run has provided us with a de facto admission that there was
no Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-of-a-god.

Jesus's three days sacrifice
http://tinyurl.com/3jhop
Duck & Run sacrificed the truth and got caught.

Which is the real God???
http://tinyurl.com/6bnoo
Duck & Run didn't know.

God isn't very smart about spreading his word, is he?
http://tinyurl.com/7xjux
Neither is Duck & Run.

Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13?
http://tinyurl.com/4v759
Duck & Run opened this thread to accuse someone else of running away.
As soon as he was challenged, Duck & Run ran away!

Why Didn't Jesus Die Sooner?
http://tinyurl.com/5gevm
Duck & Run's claims died sooner.

Why is Duke Such a Coward?
http://tinyurl.com/5p3qt
Duck & Run ran away, proving what a coward he is.

Duck & Run's five evidences of god
(that he later admitted were not evidences):
http://tinyurl.com/3otzr

Questions that Duke Can't Answer
(in which we accused Duck & Run of running away and from which
he...**RAN AWAY**! The questions remain unanswered. There are only
ten numbered questions in this thread, assembled from previous threads
from which
Duck & Run ran away. Duck & Run lied there were 75 questions
and...ran away!)
http://tinyurl.com/5ozyl

There are now well over one hundred unanswered questions that Duck &
Run has fled. Here's the bulk of them:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y

Duck & Run thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven
centuries, gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk
Duck & Run ran away.

Duke: Global Flood Challenge
A thread which we opened specifically at Duck & Run's request, and
from which he, predictably, ran away. He admitted there is no
evidence for a global flood, we presented abundant evidence that there
never was one,
Duck & Run offered zero rebuttal and ran away as he again did in the
recent flood series.
http://tinyurl.com/4l83y

Evidence that Duke can't refute:
http://tinyurl.com/5l2av
Duck & Run failed to refute the evidence and ran away, thereby proving
my case

An Answer to Pascal's Wager
http://tinyurl.com/4y63n
In which we accuse Duck & Run of running away. He ran away!

Thread: "Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly,
Lying, Hypocritical Asshole"
http://tinyurl.com/4ant3
Duck & Run ran away because he's a pathological, unregenerate,
cowardly, lying hypocritical asshole.

Thread: "Duke's Chronic lying"
http://tinyurl.com/3ra8l
Duck & Run ran away.

Thread: "aqotm - bud(ikka) style"
http://tinyurl.com/4r4gz
Duck & Run ran away from his own clueless stupidity

Thread: "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
http://tinyurl.com/3qd5m
Duck & Run was out of his depth - as he's recently proven again - and
so he...ran away!

Thread: "The Bland Assumption of Jesus' Existence"
http://tinyurl.com/5kj3m
Duck & Run ran away as we blandly assumed he would.

Thread: "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke"
http://tinyurl.com/3ozwo
Duck & Run ran away after we ran scriptural circles around him

And my favorite:
http://tinyurl.com/487vc
This was a cowardly thread Duck & Run opened titled "Budikka Runs
Away". He set this up because he was peeved that he didn't get an
instant response from me in another thread! He never told me he'd
opened this alternate thread, yet he accused me of running away in
it! LoL! When we finally happened across it and challenged him in
it, he ran away! How pathetic is that?!

And more than once/month for an entire 12 month period starting April
2009:
April 21st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzywu7q
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrmfxp
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
January 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnesb2
January 24th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
January 27th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycgm8u8
January 31st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 3rd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
February 15th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjjj93v
February 16th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 22nd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ye59brz
March 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ykgtezr
March 6th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjhe3fe
March 9th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnahkb
March 11th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yl8hcea

The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.

He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!

The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.

He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.

He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.

We used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is
no God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). We changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally we didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.

His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aimed at the
material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.

His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.

He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg

It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!

His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc

He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk

He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
http://tinyurl.com/yhyopg
("the same "sky" that's already been looked at."!)
http://tinyurl.com/6fbwqh

He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!

He has numerous documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm

He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. We personally had him run from the *same topic*
well over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!

He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43

He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u (October 22nd 2004)

and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y (July 16th 2005)

In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.

End of Douche. Case closed.

Budikka

[Patrick]

Budikka666 < wrote:
>
>Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice:
>Challenged to make a case for the existence of his god, cowardly Duke
>Box ran away!

Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
You don't accept any type of proof.
So... stop asking.

[Smiler]

We only ask for evidence, but you don't have any.

Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

> So... stop asking.

When you stop lying about having evidence.

[Budikka666]

On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.

Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

You scum are supposed to be witnessing, but every time we ask you to,
you LIE that you already did, and you RUN like the stinking diarrhea
you are.

Where is your URL to these places where all this "proof" (I didn't ask
for proof, only for evidence, but now you've asserted that you posted
***PROOF***) was posted? I thought not. kep running you lying piece
of two-faced shit.

Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
these days?

Budikka

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <hmk1l817ajn6o40ij...@4ax.com>,

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Budikka666 < wrote:
> >
> >Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice:
> >Challenged to make a case for the existence of his god, cowardly Duke
> >Box ran away!
>
> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.

Lie #1.

> You don't accept any type of proof.

Lie #2.

> So... stop asking.

And after 2 silly lies, the closing of the door.

Such a fucking coward you are. If your god actually existed, it would
spit in your face from disgust.

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43�pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

Evidence of God

Long before Galileo turned his telescope toward the stars, men and
women have wondered about their existence and if there is a God. "Why
am I here?" and "What happens when I die?" are two fundamental
questions that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. Answers
to these questions have been as diverse as the people who've asked
them.
It is impossible to prove or disprove if there is a God. In fact, the
only thing one can do - whether theist or atheist - is point to
evidence for or against a particular view. And, while there is no
definitive proof that God does exist, there are many clues. Let us
briefly examine three: Morality, Beauty, and Desire.
Most people who dispute the existence of God still operate from a set
of strongly held moral principles. Yet, they do not have any objective
basis for why they find some things to be "right" and others "wrong."
However, a claim that there are right or wrong behaviors demands that
there is some sort of higher or ultimate standard by which we
determine right or wrong. For example, most people would say that it
is wrong to steal a woman's purse. Regardless of the circumstances
surrounding a thief's action, there is a basic moral standard in
operation. Something in us says, "Stealing is wrong." A rational
person thinks that no matter how a thief might justify his or her
behavior, taking something for yourself that belongs to someone else
is morally wrong. Where do we get this moral standard? The Christian
faith claims that our idea of right and wrong comes from God, who
created the world and established the moral order
If you've ever reacted deeply to a song, a piece of art, or a sunset,
then you've experienced what might be a clue to the existence of a
supernatural God. Our experience of beauty-whether in nature, art, or
another person-reveals an inescapable sense that there is something
greater, something more than our own existence.
Desire may seem like an odd clue pointing to the existence of God. And
yet, most people would agree that for every desire, there exists
something in the world that satisfies that desire. We experience
hunger because food exists; we desire sex because sex exists; and we
crave companionship because companions exist. For every desire there
is a corresponding objective reality. We do not desire that which
does not exist. And yet, we desire God. It is a universal experience
that crosses time, geography, and culture. This may not be proof that
God exists, but it does strongly suggest that we long for something
beyond our own knowledge and capacity, for something more important or
weightier than what we've known or experienced in our own lives.
While one cannot prove the existence of God, it is possible to
identify clues that point to a supernatural, higher power. A universal
moral standard, awe-inspiring beauty, and a desire for things that we
cannot satisfy in this life are all indicators that there is more to
this world than this world.
http://www.exploringgod.com/questions/is-there-a-god?gclid=CLmxsZqi_rICFeJ9OgodiGUADA

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

http://godevidence.com/?gclid=CKbwuuPw-akCFUvCKgodPGaUYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glRAN_8CkvQ
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Flatland.html
http://www.everystudent.com/menus/existence.html
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

Proof that God exists
Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the
evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You
just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some
of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of
there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained
away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked
on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their
thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews
with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless,
because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the
moon.
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says
that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have
suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want
to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me;
when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before
you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If
God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons
to consider...
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate
Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no
end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding
gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only
extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were
smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury.
If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like
Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere
of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the
temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees.
If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze.
Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the
Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The
Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates
around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on
its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly
warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its
gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and
movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans
are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing
can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist
mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll
see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water
allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature
changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that
thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried
throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the
substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to
be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow
upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to
the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the
winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our
Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water
and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation
takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are
easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for
vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and
supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and
reused water.6
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of
information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see,
the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the
floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the
texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your
emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps
track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing
pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your
hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your
brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the
relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to
focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions
differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the
ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take
action, and relate to other people.
The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic
focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages --
simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and
within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain
the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living
organisms from nonliving matter.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous
explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This
was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the
universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time
itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The
seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in
that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature
in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in
motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed
into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of
this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million
degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused
that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light
and matter.
3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature.
Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day
after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a
counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the
speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why
is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is.
There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let
alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment
springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave
this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change
unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which
things pop in and out of existence."11
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics,
said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there
are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12
4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
instruction manual.13
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,
precise information like this, without someone intentionally
constructing it.
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is
constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of
people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists
that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting
something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do
that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for
those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was
completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I
challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if
they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free
from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers
that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be
free to go about my life.
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily
on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to
find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention
that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself
and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was
as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In
fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began
with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists
are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively
pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge,
socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that
somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he
remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted
even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of
Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted
that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most
dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result
of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully
admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I
became amazed by his love for me.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is
the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find
that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves
as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God.
Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the
others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked
about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of
separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus
said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who
believed in him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk
in darkness, but will have the light of life."14 He claimed attributes
belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free
them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give
them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people
on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say,
"follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the
truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."15
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what
people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind,
crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had
power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed
crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over
nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop
for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he
constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do
not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe
in me based on the miracles you're seeing.16
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our
self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship
with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy
of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a
different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the
punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but
many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a
cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would
love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions
known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward
humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him.
Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to
himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new
life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely
loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love,
therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."17 This is God, in
action.
Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're
told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."18
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he
has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly
respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique
chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of
people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds
to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known
through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons
to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be
forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so
right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus
said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who
hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."19
If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this
may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life
and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and
come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life
now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."
God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all
those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and
they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never
perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."20
So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that
a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.
If you need more information about Jesus' claim to divinity, or about
God's existence, or if you have similar important questions, please
email us.

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

Who created God?
This is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to
think about the big questions. Why do you think your little pea brain
can
contemplate the answer to this? Do you feel you are special?
Join the huge club of overinflated ego's trying to impress others.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is
not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible.
Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in his Hortatory
Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was
created along with the universe

How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's
creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One
is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of
cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in
which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is
false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect,
and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of
being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no
need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our
universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would
exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would
never apply to His existence.

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the
universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all.
Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the
observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that
the universe was eternal.

When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the
equations for general relativity to include space and time, the
results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation
(i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites,
you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the
universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning
of time

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside
time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple
dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of
time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is
possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for
its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis,
since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago.
The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of
super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it
is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

prove the existence of God?
There are several lines of reason that prove God's existence. The
first is the so-called Cosmological Argument.
there are essentially three possibilities as to the origin of the
universe and the implications about God:
1. That the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be
said about this notion. Nothing produces nothing. This premise is
neither logical nor reasonable.
2. That the universe is eternal. Among many scientific reasons
why the universe is not eternal are: (a) the big bang theory, (b) the
abundance of hydrogen, and (c) the irreversible decay of the universe.
a. The discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe appears to be
uniformly expanding in all directions leads to the conclusion that the
universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory is not merely a
proposition that matter expanded from an infinitely small position. It
is the proposition that the universe had an absolute beginning-that
before this event not even space nor time even existed at all!
b. Hydrogen is continually being converted into helium through
the process of nuclear fusion. This process is irreversible, so the
abundance of hydrogen in the cosmos belies the notion of an eternal
universe.
c. The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total
amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of
usable energy in the universe is constantly declining (the second
law). Apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent (God), the
stars would have burned out and the universe would have run down like
a clock with no one to wind it back up. The logical conclusion is that
it cannot be true that an infinite amount of time has passed because
the universe would have reached a cold and lifeless state of absolute
equilibrium.
3. That the universe was created by an eternal being. By process
of elimination, the existence of an omnipotent God is the most
reasonable conclusion for origin.
The Law of Causality is a fundamental principle of science and logic.
To deny it is to deny rationality.

The skeptic sometimes asks, "Well, then, who created God?" The answer
is that no one created God, as he is eternal. A rule of logic states
that every effect must have an antecedent cause. But God is not an
effect; rather he is a cause. The logic here is simple but compelling.
Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from
nothing-and further that the universe itself is not eternal-something
outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator God must
be that something. Time and space had a beginning, but God exists
outside of time and space.

In addition to the Cosmological Argument, there is the Teleological
Argument. This idea is that the design in the universe implies God.
(The Greek work telos means design.) This argument is expressed in
various ways scientifically, but with common sense that one can prove
with 100% certainty-without calling on faith or the Bible-that God
exists. There is evidence of intelligent design all around us. If one
sees a bird's nest, he concludes that a bird made it. If one sees a
computer, he must acknowledge the evidence of an intelligent computer
designer. A painting proves that there is a painter. Information does
not derive from non-information. Intelligence does not derive from
non-intelligence. The fact of creation proves a creator.
A scientific explanation of the teleological argument is the so-called
anthropic principle. This principle is the fact that the universe is
based upon several fundamental constants of physics. Even
non-Christian Stephen Hawking, considered the best-known scientist
since Albert Einstein, acknowledges "...the universe and the laws of
physics seem to have been specifically designed for us.

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

"You cannot prove the existence of God." I want to ask "How do you
know? You just met me! How do you know what I can do?"

What do most people mean when they recite this claim? Most people mean
that I cannot provide a philosophical argument for the existence of
God which will convince all thinking people. It is impossible, so the
story goes, to provide an argument which will compel assent. If my
argument will not convince the most ardent atheist, I have not proven
God's existence. Since I cannot convince such an atheist to believe,
my arguments do not count as proof. If they do not count as proof,
what good are they?
I agree that I cannot provide an argument that will convince all
thinking people. But what does this tell me? Does this tell me
anything about God? No. This tells me more about the nature of proof
than it does about whether God exists. I cannot provide an argument
which will convince everyone, without a possibility of doubt, that God
exists. That is no problem. You see, I cannot provide an argument for
any interesting philosophical conclusion which will be accepted by
everyone without possibility of doubt.
I cannot prove beyond the possibility of doubt -- in a way that will
convince all philosophers that the Rocky Mountains are really here as
a mind-independent object. I cannot prove that the entire universe did
not pop into existence five minutes ago and that all of our apparent
memories are not illusions. I cannot prove that the other people you
see on campus have minds. Perhaps they are very clever robots.
There is no interesting philosophical conclusion that can be proven
beyond the possibility of doubt. So the fact that arguments for the
existence of God do not produce mathematical certainty does not by
itself weaken the case for God's existence. It simply places the
question of God's existence in the same category as other questions
such as that of the existence of the external, mind-independent world
and the question of how we know other people have minds.
Does this mean that arguments for the existence of God are useless?
Not at all. Sure, I cannot provide an argument which will convince all
thinking people but this does not mean I don't have good reason to
believe in God. In fact some of my reasons for believing in God may be
persuasive to you. Even if you aren't persuaded to believe that God
exists, my arguments may not be useless. It is reasonable to believe
that the mountains are real and our memories are generally reliable
and that other minds exist. It is reasonable to believe these things
even though they cannot be proven. Maybe some argument for God's
existence will persuade you that belief in God is reasonable.
So how can we know that God exists? Instead of looking for undoubtable
conclusions, we weigh evidence and consider alternatives. Which
alternative best fits the evidence? We will choose one alternative or
another. There is no neutral ground.
II. Where Can we Find Information about God?
When you get to thinking about it, it seems that there are only two
basic sources of information about God, if such a being exists. They
are the following:
1. We can infer what might be true about God from what we observe
in the universe. We look at the physical universe, human nature and
culture and we observe things which may be clues to the existence or
nature of the supernatural.
2. God may have entered the Universe and told us true things
about himself, morality, meaning and how to have a relationship with
him. This is called Revelation.
Let me explain each of these. One year my wife and I drove from Los
Angeles to Rhode Island. It took a long time. The country is pretty
big. From this observation it makes sense to think that if there is
some person or being who is responsible for making the physical
universe, this being has a lot more power than we do. Now this is a
rather simplistic example. Another observation we can make is that
every culture we know anything about has a deep sense that certain
things are morally permissible and certain things are morally
prohibited. This leads us to infer that if there is some supernatural
being responsible for human nature, that being is personal. He has a
moral aspect to his nature.
The second source of information is that God may have taken the
initiative and stepped into the universe to reveal himself. He may
tell us true things about his nature and purposes and about human
meaning and morality.
Christianity holds that both of these are good sources of information.
We have clues to God's existence which can be observed and God has
entered the physical universe through the life and teaching of Jesus
of Nazareth in History and told us about himself.
Now in this article I am concentrating on the first source. Can we
know anything about God from what we observe? Are there good reasons
to believe in God based on these observations? I think there are.
III. Reasons to Believe in God
I want to pick up two observations which I think give us good reason
to think there is a God. First, the existence of the universe is
better explained by the existence of God. Second, the existence of
objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God.
A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence
of God.
I will begin by laying out the argument:
1. 1. There are things which come into existence.
2. Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by
something else.
3. There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.
4. Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into
existence. In other words, the first cause always existed.
Let us look at each of the steps in the argument:
Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence."
Many things have come into existence. This article is coming into
existence as I write it. You came into existence and so did I. This
premise is not uncontroversial.
Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist
by something else."
It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence.
Anything that causes itself to come into existence has to exist before
it exists. This is impossible. Perhaps something can come into
existence from Nothing without any cause whatsoever. Can a thing just
pop into existence with absolutely no cause? This also does not seem
reasonable.
I have three children. If I walk into the dining room and see a
picture of Pinky and the Brain which is drawn on the wall in Permanent
Magic Marker I will ask "Where did this picture come from?" My
daughter Elizabeth (who is almost five) might say "It came from
nothing, Dad. Nothing caused it. It just popped there. I think it is
quite strange -- don't you?" Will I accept this? No! Things do not
come into existence from Nothing without cause. So, we have good
reason to think that premise two is true. Everything which comes into
existence is caused to exist by something else.
Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes."
Is the series of past causes infinite? Can the universe have an
infinite past? The answer is that it cannot. First, there are
philosophical reasons to think the past cannot be infinite. Second,
there are scientific reasons which support this view.
Philosophical Reasons:
Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to
complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is
complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to
count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you
count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to
complete an actual infinite by successive addition.
The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past
events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of
past events. The series of past events does not extend into the
future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete
an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to
count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is
finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a
beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim
that the universe has always existed.
Scientific Reasons:
I will not develop these. Rather, I will simply point them out.
1. Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a
beginning, but it supports this claim.
2. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the
universe had a beginning but it also supports this claim.
We can see that we have good philosophical and Scientific reasons to
reject the idea that the Universe has always existed.
About the Universe, there are only three alternatives:
1. 1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
2. The universe was popped into existence from nothing with
absolutely no cause.
3. The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.
We have strong reason to reject the first two alternatives.
Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause.
This cause existed eternally. It initiated the big bang and created
the universe. Now what can we know about this cause? Why think the
cause is God? I will briefly sketch a few implications.
First, the first cause is not a part of the space-time physical
universe because it caused the space time universe to begin. Therefore
it is outside of space and time. It is not physical. Second, it has a
great deal of power. Third, it is a personal agent. This means it is
not an inert force but it must have aspects of person hood; namely,
that it wills. How do we know this? This is because it is the best
answer to the question of why the Big Bang happened when it did. Why
not sooner? Why not later? All of the conditions for producing the Big
Bang existed from eternity. The only kind of cause we know of that can
initiate an effect when all of the conditions are already present is
the will of a personal agent.
I have not argued that it is logically impossible that the universe
popped into existence from nothing without cause. I have argued that
it is more reasonable to hold that it has a cause and that this cause
is a non-physical personal agent -- God.
So it seems that the first argument is fairly strong. The existence of
the universe is better explained by the existence of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the
Existence of God.
People experience a sense of morality that leads them to hold strongly
that certain things are right or wrong for all people in all cultures.
For example, it is wrong to torture another person just for fun. It is
wrong for me today. It is wrong for a citizen of the Philippines and
it was wrong for someone living in 500 BC. Our moral sense provides
strong reason to believe in a personal God.
It will help clarify what I am saying if we put it into the form of an
argument.
1. If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
2. There are moral values which are objective.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Before I discuss this argument, I must make it clear that I am not
claiming that one must believe in God in order to be moral. I am not
claiming that statistically those who believe in God are more moral
than those who do not. I am also not claiming that our knowledge of
morality depends upon God. This argument is to the effect that
objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without
God. They do not fit.
Defending Premise 1. "If there is no God, there are no objective moral
values."
I have to admit that this claim is quite controversial and many
philosophers disagree with me. I think, however, that objective moral
values are not sufficiently explained in a universe without God. Many
have agreed with this claim. For example, Dostoevski had Ivan
Karamazov claim, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Sartre
wrote of Dostoevski's statement, "That is the very starting point of
existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not
exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor
without does he find anything to cling to." [see his essay
Existentialism] John Mackie -- probably the best philosophical atheist
of the twentieth century recognizes this: "[Objective moral values]
constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are
most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without
an all-powerful god to create them. If, then, there are such
intrinsically prescriptive objective values, they make the existence
of a god more probable than it would have been without them [The
Miracle of Theism, pp 115-116.]
Mackie recognizes that these objective values do not fit in the
universe if there is no God. His answer, since he rejects God, is to
claim that there are no objective moral values. His book on ethics is
appropriately titled Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. I agree with
Dostoevski, Sartre and Mackie. If there is no God, there are no
objective moral values.
Defending Premise 2. "There are objective moral values."
We know there are objective moral values. By this I mean that the
content of morality is not determined by the individual, or by
culture. Rather some things are objectively wrong. Other things are
objectively obligatory. Actions such as rape, racist discrimination
and torturing an innocent baby to death for no reason are really
wrong. Furthermore, It is wrong for me to do these no matter when I
live and no matter from what culture I come.
Now many people believe that morality is not objective. This view
comes in three basic varieties.
1. The individual determines morality.
If the individual determines morality, then if I believe it is morally
permissible to steal your stereo and beat up your girlfriend, it is
permissible for me to do it. But it is not permissible for me to beat
up your girlfriend. Therefore, the individual does not determine
morality.
2. Society determines morality.
If I lived in a completely racist society, would racism be right for
me? Not at all. When an American university student protests against
South Africa's policy of apartheid, he is assuming that morality is
not determined by society. It is transcendent of cultures. All of our
greatest heroes have been men and women who have stood up to society's
wrongs and appealed to a morality that is transcendent to society in
order to demand change. If society determines morality, it is always
morally wrong to criticize society. There is no morality outside of
society which can form the basis of a moral critique.
3. Morality has survival value.
Some people claim that the reason we have this moral sense is that it
helped the human race survive. Those individuals with moral sense
grouped together for mutual protection and these did better than those
without the moral sense. This is a kind of prehistoric social contract
theory of morality. The problem with this is that we do not need
morality to survive today. In fact, if you and I know that morality
has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it
is valid, we can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There
is no moral reason to refrain from rape, robbery and murder.
These inadequate objections show that our sense is that there is a
morality that is trans-personal, trans-cultural and trans-temporal The
existence of a personal God is the best explanation for this. It is
not up to the individual or the culture whether it is permissible to
rape simply for fun. Any individual who believes it is morally
permissible to rape for fun has a false belief. Any culture whose
moral guidelines include the claim that it is permissible to rape for
fun has simply got it wrong.
If it is true that Hitler was morally wrong, it is true that there are
objective moral truths which are trans-cultural. If it is true that it
was wrong for Romans to leave baby girls to die on the trash heaps --
simply because they were girls, then morality is not determined by
culture. If it is true that Martin Luther King was a moral hero
because he criticized his own culture by appealing to objective
morality, then it is true that morality is not determined by culture.
Now, It is true that Hitler was wrong. It is true that the Romans were
wrong. It is true that Martin Luther King was right -- heroically
right. So, we know there are objective moral truths. But objective
morality makes no sense in the Universe if there is no God. Objective
moral values point to the existence of a moral being who created the
universe. His moral character is the standard for objective right and
wrong.
Summary
I have briefly presented two arguments for the existence of God. These
show that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists than that
He does not exist.
A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence
of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the
Existence of God.
So we see that some of the things we observe about the natural world
ground a strong inference to the claim that God does exist. This gives
us reason to consider with renewed openness the possibility that God
has entered the space-time universe and revealed Himself through the
person and life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.
I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God
exists. I have, however, provided good reasons to think that He does.
If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He
must first, provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, he
must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until He does this, we
can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

Why do Catholics believe that the universe and all life in it was
created by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called
God? What actual proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence?

Catholics believe that the universe is the creation, and the exclusive
dominion, of an infinitely powerful Spirit Being, called God, because
the evidence which points to that conclusion is so overwhelming that
there is no room left for even the slightest vestige of doubt. First,
there is the evidence of logic. Through the process of simple
mathematical-type reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with
certain indisputable principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can
bring itself into existence.
Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but
ultimately there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This
uncaused cause we call ``God.'' (The theory of evolution, even if it
could be proved, would not explain the origin of anything; evolution
simply deals with what may have happened after matter came into
existence.) Further, 1) personal creation (man) presupposes a superior
Personal Creator, 2) universal order presupposes a Universal Orderer,
3) cosmic energy presupposes a Cosmic Energizer, 4) natural law
presupposes a Universal Law Maker. Basic principles of reason such as
these explain why so many of the world's leading scientists are firm
believers in God.
Then, there is the evidence of divine revelation--on countless
occasions God has revealed Himself by voice, vision and apparition (by
means which are receptive to the human senses), and demonstrated His
Omnipotence by stupendous, obviously supernatural miracles. Many of
these revelations are a matter of authenticated historical record. The
Scriptures, for example, are full of such accounts; and in modern
times the world has been witness to such Heaven-sent miracles as those
at Fatima, Lourdes, and St. Anne de Beaupr� in Quebec, Canada, where
the cured have left a forest of crutches in testimony. (The Lourdes
Medical Bureau is open for examination by any doctor.) In addition,
there is the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius which still
takes place in Naples each year on September 19, his feastday; the
incorruption of the bodies of many Catholic saints (such as St.
Bernadette, who died in 1879); and the miraculous Eucharistic Host of
Lanciano, Italy, which has been scientifically proven to be human
flesh and human blood, type AB--to mention only a few of the miracles
still on-going in the 20th century, which point to the existence of a
God.

And lastly there is the evidence of human intuition. Psychologists
have long known that every human being--the atheist
included--intuitively seeks God's help in times of great calamity, and
instinctively pleads for God's mercy when death is imminent. Hence the
renowned Voltaire, who was so eloquent in his denial of God while he
enjoyed health, fame and fortune, repudiated all of his atheistic
writings on his deathbed and frantically sought the ministrations of a
Catholic priest. Nikolai Lenin, as he lay on his deathbed, looked
around him and frantically asked pardon of the tables and chairs in
the room. For as hunger for food proclaims the existence of food,
man's intuitive hunger for God proclaims the Reality, the Omnipotence
and the Justice of God. Catholic belief in God, therefore, is purely
and simply an expression of intellectual sanity.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
>Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?

>Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>you worthless pile of theist trash? Is tha thow delusional you are
>these days?

Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

Would you like more URL's?
Get back to me when you have completely refuted each and every piece
of "proof" or "evidence" that I have posted.
And I don't mean I want your further insults, honey.
I want PROOF of what you whine about.

In the mean time, fuck off.

[Don Kresch]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:15:47 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
scrawled in blood:

h, tell me what you really think, honey.
>
>Evidence of God

There isn't any.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[The Magpie]

On 25/03/2013 22:43, Patrick wrote:
>
> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here. You don't accept
> any type of proof. So... stop asking.
>

What complete nonsense on every level, Patrick.

[The Magpie]

On 26/03/2013 12:15, Patrick wrote:
>
> Evidence of God
>
Ooooooo! Shall we review your "evidence" then Patrick?
>
> [Snip build-up]

>
> Let us briefly examine three: Morality, Beauty, and Desire.
>

Nope, they are neither evidence nor "clues" so we can ignore them
entirely and will.
>
> [Snip "morality" claims].

>
> If you've ever reacted deeply to a song, a piece of art, or a
> sunset, then you've experienced what might be a clue to the
> existence of a supernatural God.
>

Nope - you are simply human [Snip "beauty" claims].
>
> [Snip "desire" nonsense].

> And yet, we desire God.
>

No we don't, we can snip the rest. [Snip "desire" claims].
>
And that leaves.... nothing!

[The Magpie]

On 26/03/2013 12:17, Patrick wrote:
>
> Proof that God exists
>
Ooooooo! Now he claims "proof" so lets examine that....
>
> [Snip build-up nonsense].

>
> 1. Does God exist?
>
> The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who
> not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
>

No, it does not. Next.....
>
> [Snip "design" nonsense - seven alleged "proofs"!].

>
> 2. Does God exist?
>
> The universe had a start - what caused it?
>

We do not know that. In fact, it seems unlikely. Next...
>
> 4. Does God exist?
>
Where was number three?

>
> The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
>

Wrong. [Snip "cellular design" nonsense].
>
> 5. Does God exist?
>
Are we nearly there yet?

>
> We know God exists because he pursues us.
>

No we do not - that is total crap. [Snip "belief" nonsense].
>
Well, well - nothing left. Again!

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

>Where is your URL to these places where all this "proof" (I didn't ask
>for proof, only for evidence, but now you've asserted that you posted
>***PROOF***) was posted? I thought not. kep running you lying piece
>of two-faced shit.

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Belief in God
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? Many scientists believe
that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is
a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of
modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in
a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today,
believe because of the evidence.

1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first
mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He
attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the
Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented
in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved,
and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was
never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to
publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the
Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to
God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the
Bible.
2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific
method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In
De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as
being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to
the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and
reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient
depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy
inclineth man�s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth
men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon
second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no
further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and
linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of
Atheism)
3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work
on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun.
He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal
gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of
force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler
was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy
contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the
Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the
sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay
in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had
been expelled!
4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic
Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in
1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope
discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based
upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits
of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his
work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of
the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's)
was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the
sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work,
which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot
err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical
texts.
5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who
has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies
made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep
religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying
day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth.
At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek
to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began
by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting
the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten
that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty
of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not
want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses
and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole
philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be
adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in
the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which
God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for
their era.
6.Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and
theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of
projective geometry and established the foundation for probability
theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the
principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman
Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the
direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began
publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most
influential theological work, the Pens�es ("Thoughts"), was a defense
of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous
concept from Pens�es was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were,
"May God never abandon me."
7.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of
undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including
chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less
well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as
involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He
did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of
his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important.
In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and
absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful
system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the
counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
8.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle
gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important
work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will
he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still
continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious
infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in
promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and
publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed
his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to
show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle
wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern
invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian
than the average in his era.
9.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the
greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and
magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our
lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and
telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian
member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and
strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted
nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the
idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type
of Christianity.
10.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics,
in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in
1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in
the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected
Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively
unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of
botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though
their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that
the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was
dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image
of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was
Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in
genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to
"improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not
conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk
was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work
of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
11.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who
helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many
areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name
than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous
honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the
value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was
certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly,
his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James
Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment,
in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The
Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern
physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest
influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton
and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions."
Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's
age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an
upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low
estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
12.Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for
quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic
and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and
Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere
present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is
conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too
much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden
from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing,
beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science
and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism,
against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
13.Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist
of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in
our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to
energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he
recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The
Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein
expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the
harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in
science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how
God created this world, I am not interested in this or that
phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know
His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the
"uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this
was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying
of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science
is blind."

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Where is your URL to these places where all this "proof" (I didn't ask
>for proof, only for evidence, but now you've asserted that you posted
>***PROOF***) was posted? I thought not. kep running you lying piece
>of two-faced shit.

Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
By
A. CRESSY MORRISON,
Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences
WE ARE STILL IN THE DAWN of the scientific age, and every increase of
light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator.
We have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific
humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching ever
nearer to an awareness of God.
For myself, I count seven reasons for my faith:
First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe
was designed and executed by a great engineering intelligence.
Suppose you put ten pennies, marked from one to ten, into your pocket
and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence
from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all
again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number
one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100;
of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in 1000, and so on;
your chance of drawing them all, from number one to number ten in
succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one in ten billion.
By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for
life on the earth that they could not possibly exist in proper
relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis 1000 miles an
hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and
nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely
burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any
surviving sprout might well freeze.
Again the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000
degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this
"eternal life" warms us just enough and not too much ! If the sun gave
off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it
gave as much more, we would roast.
The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our
seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean
would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our
moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance,
our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would
be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away. If the
crust of the earth had only been ten feet thicker, there would be no
oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few
feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no
vegetable life could exist.
It is apparent from these and a host of other examples that there is
not one chance in billions that life on our planet is an accident.
Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a
manifestation of an all-pervading Intelligence.
What life itself is, no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor
dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock.
Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the elements,
compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations.
Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs
every leaf of every tree, and colors every flower. Life is a musician
and has taught each bird to sing its love song, the insects to call
one another in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a
sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the
rose, changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood, and, in so
doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life.
Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent, jellylike,
capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this
transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life,
and has power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and
small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and
animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create
life; fire-blistered rocks and a saltless sea could not meet the
necessary requirements.
Who, then, has put it here?
Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused
instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures.
The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own
river, and travels up the very side of the river into which flows the
tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you
transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off
his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream
and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny accurately.
Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing
creatures migrate at maturity from ponds and rivers everywhere - those
from Europe across thousands of miles of ocean - all bound for the
same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little
ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are
in a wilderness of water, nevertheless start back and find their way
not only to the very shore from which their parents came but thence to
the selfsame rivers, lakes or little ponds. No American eel has ever
been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has
even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to
make up for its longer journey. Where does the directional impulse
originate?
Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of
reason.
No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten, or
even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single
note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all
the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabor
this fourth point; thanks to human reason we can contemplate the
possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a
spark of Universal Intelligence.
Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in such phenomena as the
wonders of genes.
So tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all
living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be
less than a thimbleful. Yet these genes inhabit every living cell and
are the keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A
thimble is a small place to hold all the individual characteristics of
almost three billion human beings. However, the facts are beyond
question.
Here evolution really begins - at the cell, the entity which holds and
carries the genes. That the ultra-microscopic gene can absolutely rule
all life on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that
could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence; no other hypothesis
will serve.
Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only
infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute
husbandry.
Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a
protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia, the cactus
soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until
the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding
inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms.
Seeking a defense, entomologists scoured the world; finally they
turned up an insect which lived exclusively on cactus, and would eat
nothing else. It would breed freely, too; and it had no enemies in
Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable, and today the cactus
pest has retreated - and with it all but a small protective residue of
the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check forever.
Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not
fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs
such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects
grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of
the body. Hence there never has been an insect of great size; this
limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical
check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a
hornet as big as a lion !
Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a
unique proof.
The conception of God rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared
with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its
power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The
vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man's perfected
imagination becomes a spiritual reality, he may discern in all the
evidence of design and purpose the great truth that heaven is wherever
and whatever; that God is everywhere and in everything that nowhere so
close as in our hearts.
It is scientifically as well as imaginatively true, as the Psalmist
said: The heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth
His handiwork.

http://www.dlshq.org/messages/sciblgod.htm

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Where is your URL to these places where all this "proof" (I didn't ask
>for proof, only for evidence, but now you've asserted that you posted
>***PROOF***) was posted? I thought not. kep running you lying piece
>of two-faced shit.

IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
By

SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA
The subject that has been suggested is somewhat an involved one, and I
do not know how far this would be a very appropriate theme to discuss
before an audience of this kind who are basically devotees of God and
aspirants of the spiritual ideal of life. However, all visions of life
can be consolidated into a system of integrated organisation, and
nothing conceivable can be regarded as extraneous to the methodology
to be adopted in the pursuit of the spiritual ideal.

"Is there a conflict between the scientific method and the religious
aspiration of the soul?" is a moot question. Generally, when people
speak of science, what the common populace understands is the comfort
that has been provided by applied science, such as fast travelling,
telephone, telegraph, Internet, satellite, and television. These are
the things that are in the minds of people when they speak of the
technological advance science has made; but science does not mean
technology. It is a vision of life itself.

What clashes or appears to come in conflict with religion is not the
comfort that has been brought to us by these technological inventions
of applied science, but the theory of science, which is something very
deep, and bordering upon philosophical and metaphysical foundations of
life itself.

That the world is external to everyone is the basic foundation of all
scientific perception. Observation and experiment being the methods of
a scientific process, it goes without saying that what is observed and
experimented upon has to be outside. The outsideness of the world is a
very important aspect to be considered here, but we may put a question
to our own selves: "Is the world really outside us, so that what
happens in the world does not affect us in any way, and the world does
not care for what is happening to us in our own internal operations?
Are the individual and the world, the two principles of consideration
here, segregated from each other? Has the world nothing to do with the
individual, and has the individual nothing to do with the world?" It
looks that there is no communication possible between the individual
and the world. The world may not know at all that some individual is
dead and gone, and the individual is not concerned in any manner if a
star in heaven cools down and extinguishes itself. Let anything happen
to the heavens; what does it matter to us? But, "Is it so?" is the
question.

This supposed conflict between physical science and religion may be
said to have begun somewhere toward the end of the nineteenth century,
when the geocentric interpretation of the heavenly bodies was replaced
by the heliocentric concept on the discovery of Copernicus. This
discovery clashed with the biblical belief and tradition, which holds
that the earth is the foundation, and the sun and the moon and the
stars move round this earth.

The second thing that opposed religion as it was understood in those
days was that the world was created, according to the biblical
tradition, some four thousand years ago, but the scientific discovery
declares that the beginning of the world must be traced back to aeons
and aeons of time process earlier, and the earth is several millions
of years old. This again was a challenge to the medieval concept of
religion.

But the third thing is most important. When Newton discovered the law
of gravitation and concluded that everything that is happening in the
physical world can be mathematically deduced by the logical process of
conclusion drawn from premises, and the world which is physical in its
nature is contained within the cup of space and time, and when his
successor or follower Laplace wrote the five volumes on 'Celestial
Mechanics,' the war between science and religion appeared to have
commenced. We are told that the writings of Laplace were presented to
Napoleon for his consideration. Napoleon seems to have declared,
"Monsieur, I do not see God in your scheme"; and the answer of Laplace
seems to have been, "Your highness, I have used the best of
telescopes, but I have not found God anywhere." This is classical
science: God has to be seen in order to be believed.

Does it follow then that whatever we see with our eyes really exists?
Can we establish logically or scientifically that the world exists at
all? Which scientific procedure can establish the truth of the
externality of the world? Science is against any kind of hypothesis
and taking for granted anything unproved. But is there any proof to
substantiate the belief that the world exists, except the assertion
that it is seen? The senses come in contact with what we call the
panorama of the external world. That is the proof!

Here, science fumbles. It is trying to cut the ground from under its
own feet. Taking anything for granted is not the beginning of science.
We cannot even take for granted that the world exists unless we prove
that it exists. One cannot prove one's own existence even. How do you
know that you are existing? Where is the syllogism by which you have
deduced the consequence of your existence from a premise? What is the
proof that can establish the truth of your own existence? Bring the
argument and let us see what it is that tells you that you really
exist.

It was the French philosopher Rene Descartes who took up this question
of doubting the existence of his own self: "Some devil may be working
in my mind. It may be telling me everything in a topsy-turvy way. The
world may not be there. I may not be here. Everything is doubtful.
There is no certainty of anything. I can doubt the validity of
anything and everything." But he went deeper into this phenomenon of
doubt and discovered that doubt is not possible unless there is
someone who is to doubt; if the doubter also is to be doubted, the
very fact of doubting loses its meaning. Nobody can be an utter
sceptic, because that defeats the very purpose of scepticism. I am
thinking and, therefore, I must be existing. This is Descartes'
conclusion.

What sort of existence is mine? I am conscious that I am existing.
What is that consciousness? "I am an individual; I am Mr. so-and-so,"
is my consciousness of existence. Is the consciousness of the
existence of a personality a complete acceptance of the truth of life?
He concluded that this cannot be the ultimate truth of life because
there is a longing to break the boundaries of personality in everyone.
No one can tolerate finitude. The finite consciousness, which is
proved by the very fact of my knowing that I am, establishes the
validity of there being something which is not finite. What is it that
is not the finite? It should not be a multitude of finites; it should
be the Infinite. My existence as a finite being, substantiated by the
indubitability of this assertion, also brings about a wider unexpected
consequence,�namely the Infinite also should exist; therefore, God
exists. If I am existing, God has to exist, because the concept of God
is only a cosmic correlative of the acceptance of one�s own being as a
finite individual. The finiteness of individuality proves the
infinitude of the Truth of life. This smashes the erstwhile concept of
the externality of the world, and the dichotomy that is seen between
the perceiver and the perceived.

Now I am touching upon the threat that theoretical science poses
before religion. Here, it is also necessary to understand what
religion is. Though we are trying to analyse the practical and
theoretical aspects of science, do we know what religion is? Religion
basically is a longing for what is above oneself. There is something
transcending myself; but for that fact, I would be a most happy person
in this world. I would be carefree, secure ultimately, and perfect in
every sense of the term. But no one feels that one is perfect. There
is always a complaint that something is wrong, something is
inadequate, something is insufficient. Finally, there is a threat of
extinction of the existence of the individual himself. Death comes
upon oneself.

These are the fears of the psyche, which have a basis and a
truthfulness in the sense that they indicate the possibility of the
existence of some realm where these insecure conditions are overcome
completely.

The truths of life seem to be in several layers of self-transcendence,
one rising above the other, and the lower does not satisfy until the
next higher one is reached. We can never be satisfied with anything in
this world because satisfaction cannot arise from that which is
totally outside us. The outsideness of the values of life and the
objects supposed to bring us satisfaction defeats the very attempt at
acquiring any kind of permanent joy and satisfaction in this world.
That from which we seek satisfaction, namely the objects of sense, are
incapable of contact by the perceiver because of the fact that they
are outside. We have already dubbed the world as something totally
external to us, unconnected with us, and therefore, we can expect
nothing from the world. Nevertheless, man runs after the pleasures of
life in the form of contact with objects which are totally outside.
Here is a contradiction in the very operation of desire itself. It is
a self- defeating attempt of what we call human desire.

Desire is the longing to possess that which is not within oneself, but
which is outside. But the outsideness of the object prevents its
coming in contact with the experiencing consciousness. So every desire
ends in tragedy, frustration and utter defeat, and no one ever goes
from this world with the satisfaction that the attempt has succeeded.
Everything is lost. The conclusion of the old man who is about to
depart is that the whole life has become futile, and there is no value
or worth in anything, because he has lived a life of pursuing that
which one cannot expect in a world that is totally outside.

The religious ideal is not based on the concept of the externality of
the world, or the internality of anything. The world is neither
outside us, nor is it inside. We are integrally related to the world;
so is the case with the world in respect of our own selves. We are not
sitting outside the world, we are in the world, but not inside the
world as something contained in a pot. The relationship between the
individual and the cosmos is of an organic whole. To put it in a more
plain way, we may say it is something like the organs of the body
getting related to the bodily organism itself. Though the hand and the
feet can be perceived by oneself as objects of sense, they do not
remain as external objects. They are organic parts of the whole body,
which is the transcendence of the limbs. Thus, religion rises above
the classical scientific notion of the externality of the world and
touches upon what we may call the universal concept of the truth of
life.

The Truth, which is the ultimate aim of the religious pursuit, is an
all-comprehensive universal inclusiveness, and here it does not go
hand in hand with classical physics which requires the world to be
totally outside. The clash between physical science in its classical
form and the religious ideal lies in this fact that on one side it is
asserted that the fact of life is a universal inclusiveness; on the
other side, it is asserted that it is totally outside.

Later, towards the middle of the twentieth century, the theories of
science got modified systematically, and more considerate and
investigative scientists found that it is impossible to know anything
unless there is a relationship between the knower and the known. A
totally disconnected object, as the world is, cannot be known by any
individual consciousness. The involvement of the object of perception
in the subjective operation of visualising is necessary in order that
perception can take place at all. There must be an en rapport between
the perceiving consciousness and the perceived object. The two stand
parallel to each other. Neither is the world above the individual, nor
is the individual above the world. They are coeval in time and space.
We are of the same stuff as the world is made of, and we are living in
a realm which is just the physical realm of the five elements. The
world is a constitution of the five physical elements,-earth, water,
fire, air, and ether, which also are the building bricks of the
individual body. The very substance of our physical existence is the
same as the substance of the physical world. The building bricks of
the cosmos are the building bricks of our own personalities. Then, if
that is the case, what is it that makes us feel that we are different
from the world? It is an interference of a particular unintelligible
phenomenon called space and time. Though classical physics from the
point of view of Newton considered that space and time have nothing to
do with the contents of the world, it was later discovered that space
and time are vitally connected with every physical event in the world.
It is in the Taittiriya Upanishad that we hear of the evolutionary
process of the cosmos. Tasmadva etasmadatmana akashah sambhutah: From
the Universal Absolute, the Selfhood of the cosmos, space emanated.
Here, we must realise that even space has a connection with the
Absolute. Akashadvayuh; The principle of air emanated from the
vibrations of space. Vayoragnih; Friction created by the movement of
air created heat, which is fire. Agnerapah; The condensation of the
heat of fire produced the liquid condition of the world, which is
water. The solidification of water became the earth principle, Adbhyah
prithivi. Prithivya oshadhayah: From the earth arise all herbs, plants
and trees, which are the foodstuff of animals and human beings.
Oshadhibhyannam; All that we eat arises from the plants and trees and
vegetables and such edible articles produced by the earth.
Annatpurushah; The human arises as a latecomer in the process of
evolution. This physical body is annamaya, constituted of the
foodstuff which is the earth principle, which again is an evolutionary
consequence of the water principle, that again of the fire principle,
the fire principle of the air principle, the air principle of the
space principle, and the space principle is rooted in the Universal
Existence.

So, you can know your connection with the Ultimate Reality. We are
sunk deep in Ultimate Being. We are an automatic evolute in the lowest
form of its expression, in its physical, material form, which is the
spatio-temporal expression of the non-spatial and non-temporal Supreme
Being which is Ultimate Consciousness: satyam jnanamanantam brahma.

Lofty is this concept. Today, the more understanding type of physical
scientists have practically stumbled upon this great concept of the
Upanishads. Mathematicians who declared that the world is only
equations, point events, and waves of probability, or a continuum of
some indescribable stuff which is incapable of description, have
inadvertently been forced to accept that existence is indivisible.
This conclusion should be drawn by the consciousness of the scientist
himself.

The great physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington, who would not accept that
there is God or such a thing as consciousness, fell upon this
acceptance inadvertently, unconsciously, as it were. In his great book
"The Nature of the Physical World," he utters gospel truth: "The stuff
of the world is consciousness."

Science misunderstood is a threat to religion; if you consider it only
as a technological process of flying with great speed, and working
through satellite, television and internet, that would be a poor
concept of science. Science is noble investigative procedure, which
can take us to the depths of the secrets of life, if dispassionately
we go with it.

Here is an unexpected discovery of science that the stuff of the world
has to be consciousness. Why is it so? It is because the world has to
be known in order that it may be accepted to exist. Who is telling you
that the world is existing? Your consciousness is telling this. How
does the consciousness know that the world is existing, unless this
consciousness is pervading the world of perception? The imbibition of
the very structure of the physical world into the structure of
consciousness is the reason why we believe in the existence of a
world, and that it is outside. So, there is finally no conflict
between the highest discoveries of science and the noble aspirations
of religion.

By "religion" we are not meaning Hinduism, Christianity,
Buddhism,-this "ism," that "ism," and all that. These are all
designated denominational forms of the true meaning of religion.
Religion is the aspiration of the soul for its ultimate destiny. It is
a search of the individual for the Absolute. It is a longing of the
spirit within us for God Almighty. It has nothing to do with any
"ism," and no one can be free from this eternal longing for
perfection, which may better be called spiritual aspiration rather
than a religious longing, because of the abuse of the word "religion"
in modern times, under historical circumstances, and in the studies in
schools and colleges.

People who are now considering themselves as scientists and very
advanced in logical thinking pooh-pooh religion, thinking that it is
an old grandmother's story, because their idea of religion is so poor,
as is their concept of science. There is a tragedy that has befallen
every one of us in our not being able to be precise in our knowledge
of things, whether it is scientific or religious.

There is no conflict. There was a time in the Middle Ages when
physical science appeared to be clashing with the theological
doctrines of the church. The church excommnunicated many scientists,
and they were punished with severe indictments from the Pope. An
inquisition was set up in the Middle Ages,-for us, very unthinkable,
indeed. People were burnt, thrown into the flames by dogmatic
religious followers, and science retaliated and disconnected itself
from the Pope.

Today we are in a different world altogether. The conflict has ceased;
at least, it is appearing to be ceasing. Though it was once said, "The
East is East and the West is West, and the twain shall never meet," I
think today it is attempting to come together, and is meeting. The
West and the East wish to shake hands with each other and accept their
common heritage as human beings, rather than Westerners and
Easterners, scientists and religious followers, seekers of God and
seekers of material values.

There are several textbooks written these days, where powerful
monograph have gone into the depths of this harmony that is already
existing between the external and the universal. Though the external
may be different from the internal, it cannot be external to the
universal. The universal is a transcendent element which rises above
both the subjective side and the objective side. We cannot even know
that there is anything outside us unless there is a third element
which is not ourselves, and not the object that is perceived, also.

Because of the externality of the object of perception and the
internality of consciousness, there is no connection between the two,
and knowledge is impossible; no one can know that anything is. But
there is a transcendent principle. Eastern thought considers this as
adhidaiva, a spiritual principle operating as a transcendental
element,-unknown and unperceivable, but operating between the
subjective side and the objective side.

The subjective side is called the adhyatma, the objective is
adhibhauta, and the transcendent is adhidaiva. All the three have to
work together in order that there may be perception at all. But we are
so poor in our understanding that we know little of ourselves, and
much less of the world, and nothing at all of this transcendental
operation. Gods are behind our eyes and ears, our nose and tongue, and
our sensations. These gods which are the denizens of heaven are the
operators of this mechanism called the physical body with its sense
organs. It is a presumption on the part of the egoistic individual to
think that he or she is working. The workers are the great divine
beings which are transcendent adhidaivas,-gods in heaven, as we call
them. But they are invisible. They are invisible because they are
neither inside nor outside; they are "above."

Here is a path-finding direction for both science and religion, so
that if they work together in harmony they can create a world of joy
and satisfaction that life is worth living. Do you want to depart from
this world with the tragic feeling that nothing has been achieved? The
world has eluded the grasp of everybody. Kings have come, empires rose
and fell, and the earth has not changed. It appears to be so because
of our wrong evaluation of the historical process. History is actually
a natural process of the cosmos. It is the total operation taking
place in the whole of creation, even when a little event is taking
place somewhere in a corner of the world. Our learned speaker
mentioned about quantum mechanics and the discoveries of relativity,
etc., which highlighted the astounding truth of sudden and
simultaneous action taking place in the universe. Every event is a
simultaneous event. It is not taking place yesterday and tomorrow; it
is just now, everywhere.

Did not the poet tell us that we cannot touch the petals of a flower
in our garden without disturbing the stars in the heavens? It is not
poetry; it is the truth. Every event is a universal event. Anything
that is taking place anywhere takes place everywhere, and we are
living throughout the universe, in all parts of the cosmos. Our
individuality is not confined merely to this earth planet. It is
everywhere in different parts.

Scientists today have discovered the possibility of worlds within
worlds, and the possibility of many worlds, and our being inhabitants
of all these worlds simultaneously. "Simultaneously" is the word we
have to underline. We are not inhabiting these many worlds in
succession,-today here, tomorrow somewhere else. At one stroke, in a
timeless manner, we inhabit the whole cosmos, and we are world
citizens working in different forms. Unknown to our own selves, one
part of ourselves is here on this earth performing activities in this
way, and another part of our own archetypal nature is in the heaven,
even today.

Our higher self in the heaven is pulling us and summoning us: "Come
on. You are not here, where you appear to be. You are in the heaven."
That is why we are longing for the higher values of life, and we can
never be satisfied; we are always unsatisfied because we are not in
this world. We are really in some other world,-not only in some other
world, we are in all the worlds. This universal operation of
individuals is a great discovery of modern Quantum Mechanics, which is
quite different from that science which appears to be in conflict with
religion. Science has become spirituality; physics has become
metaphysics.

This is a wonder toward the end of the twentieth century that we are
seeing; we believe that God shall come. The kingdom of heaven is
within us; it is within us, because it is everywhere. How can a large
kingdom be contained within our little frame of physical existence? It
is because the inwardness of our existence is not actually the
physical inwardness. The whole universe can be within us.

It is the Chandogya Upanishad which tells us that whatever is
happening in the outside world is happening within us. If the sun is
shining there, it is shining inside, also. If it is hot outside, it is
hot inside, also. If it is raining outside, it is raining inside,
also. If there is thunder there, there is thunder here, also. But we
are so stupid that we cannot realise these events are taking place
within us, commensurate with all the things that are happening outside
in the world.

We are the world; thus, the discovery of science today tells us. This
is what the great Yoga Vasishtha scripture tells us. This is what the
Upanishads tell us. It is not merely the twain of West and East that
is coming together; God and man are shaking hands with each other in
this vast kingdom of universal creation.

http://www.dlshq.org/messages/scichalrel.htm

[Patrick]

I'm not the whiner asking for proof that God exists.
If the dork can't figure out why people believe, that person deserves
to be given the "proof" that he/she NEEDs.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <knr3l8ptnajr8gjol...@4ax.com>,

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:33:17 +0000, The Magpie
> <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:
>
> >On 25/03/2013 22:43, Patrick wrote:
> >>
> >> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here. You don't accept
> >> any type of proof. So... stop asking.
> >>
> >What complete nonsense on every level, Patrick.
>
> I'm not the whiner asking for proof that God exists.

Nobody's asking for proof, so why do you keep lying and saying they do?

Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

[Patrick]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:01:29 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <knr3l8ptnajr8gjol...@4ax.com>,
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:33:17 +0000, The Magpie
>> <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 25/03/2013 22:43, Patrick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here. You don't accept
>> >> any type of proof. So... stop asking.
>> >>
>> >What complete nonsense on every level, Patrick.
>>
>> I'm not the whiner asking for proof that God exists.
>
>Nobody's asking for proof, so why do you keep lying and saying they do?
>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Because you haven't explained it yet.
Please be specific.

[Patrick]

eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true.
Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more
than one evidence can add up to proof.

I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided
absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt.



Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your
jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof.
If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence
that I robbed a bank. A videotape showing me at the bank holding the
gun would prove that I robbed a bank.

Be wary of lax standards for proof. We all want to know things
absolutely, which causes us to tend to misinterpret mere evidence as
proof.

Proof comes from a premise or premisses and an argument. For instance:

(1) All cats have fur.

(2) Fluffy is a cat.

(3) If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy has fur.

(1) and (2) are premisses. (3) is an argument. If the premisses are
true and the argument is reasonable, we have proof that Fluffy has
fur.

The problem usually is trying to establish that your premisses are
true. Events occur in time. To actually say that an event happened
requires evidence of its occurance. Evidence can be eyewitness
accounts and the current effects of the event's occurance. For
instance we may have:

(A) A live, furless cat with a collar bearing the name tag "Fluffy."

(B) a pile of white curly hair near the cat.

(C) a hair clipper.

(D) a 10 year old boy with bleeding scratches all over his forearms.
He denies having shaved the fur off the cat.

(E) a 7 year old girl who claims to have seen the boy shaving the fur
off the the cat.

We might:

(F) finger print the boy. We lift finger prints off of the clipper.
They match.

(G) call in a veterinarian. She says the scratches on the boy's are
are consistant with the scratches that the cat could have made.

(H) test the blood on the cat's claws. The DNA of the blood on the
cat's claws matches the boy's DNA.

(I) test the DNA of Cat. The DNA of the pile of curly hair on the
floor matches the cat's DNA.

Items (A) through (I) are evidence. But until someone puts together a
logical, inductive argument using the evidence as premisses, there's
no proof that Fluffy ever had any fur or that the boy shaved it off.

[Smiler]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:00:53 -0400, Patrick wrote:

> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
>
> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true.
> Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than
> one evidence can add up to proof.
>
> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided absolute
> proof beyond reasonable doubt.

No you didn't. All you provided were beliefs.

Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

>

> Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your
> jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof.

It may be evidence, but it could have been planted.

> If
> the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I
> robbed a bank.

Or that you are a wealthy person who doesn't have a bank account.

> A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would
> prove that I robbed a bank.

That would be further evidence. Maybe you were trying to shoot the robbers.

>
> Be wary of lax standards for proof. We all want to know things
> absolutely, which causes us to tend to misinterpret mere evidence as
> proof.

You misinterpret beliefs as proof.

>
> Proof comes from a premise or premisses and an argument. For instance:
>
> (1) All cats have fur.
>
> (2) Fluffy is a cat.
>
> (3) If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy has fur.
>
> (1) and (2) are premisses. (3) is an argument. If the premisses are true
> and the argument is reasonable, we have proof that Fluffy has fur.

There is at least one breed of hairless cat.

>
> The problem usually is trying to establish that your premisses are true.
> Events occur in time. To actually say that an event happened requires
> evidence of its occurance. Evidence can be eyewitness accounts and the
> current effects of the event's occurance. For instance we may have:
>
> (A) A live, furless cat with a collar bearing the name tag "Fluffy."
>
> (B) a pile of white curly hair near the cat.
>
> (C) a hair clipper.
>
> (D) a 10 year old boy with bleeding scratches all over his forearms. He
> denies having shaved the fur off the cat.
>
> (E) a 7 year old girl who claims to have seen the boy shaving the fur
> off the the cat.
>
> We might:
>
> (F) finger print the boy. We lift finger prints off of the clipper. They
> match.
>
> (G) call in a veterinarian. She says the scratches on the boy's are are
> consistant with the scratches that the cat could have made.
>
> (H) test the blood on the cat's claws. The DNA of the blood on the cat's
> claws matches the boy's DNA.
>
> (I) test the DNA of Cat. The DNA of the pile of curly hair on the floor
> matches the cat's DNA.
>
> Items (A) through (I) are evidence. But until someone puts together a
> logical, inductive argument using the evidence as premisses, there's no
> proof that Fluffy ever had any fur or that the boy shaved it off.

Evidence and logical, inductive arguments are totally absent in your
supposed 'proofs'.

[W.T.S.]

In article <rhg4l8ljpsndp4pjt...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

Yep! Patrick is starting to realize that "God" is a lie.
>

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>
As always, organized religion opposes progress -

See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?

Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.

"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned

alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
fire of hell." --- Karl Popper

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can

but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
he
is both powerless and wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like

this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people

to do evil things, that takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen

"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
Mark
Twain

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins

"Cult today, religion tomorrow."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[Wombat]

Maddox, my daughter's Sphinx cat, is sleeping on the window sill as I
write this. Most of his body is totally hairless, just some fuzz on
his tail and hind legs.

Wombat

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:53:29 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:15:47 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>scrawled in blood:
>h, tell me what you really think, honey.
>>
>>Evidence of God
>
> There isn't any.

Not in your tiny world.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:28:00 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:43:54 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>
>> Budikka666 < wrote:
>>>
>>>Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice: Challenged
>>>to make a case for the existence of his god, cowardly Duke Box ran away!
>>

>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here. You don't accept any
>> type of proof.
>

>We only ask for evidence, but you don't have any.

>Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

Sure we have evidence - creation of all things at one instant in time.
You don't get to define evidence.

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:33:17 +0000, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:

A typing magpie.

[duke]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:45:56 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:00:53 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>
>> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
>>
>> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true.
>> Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than
>> one evidence can add up to proof.
>>
>> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided absolute
>> proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>No you didn't. All you provided were beliefs.

Evidence is evidence.

[The Magpie]

On 26/03/2013 18:55, Patrick wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:33:17 +0000, The Magpie
> <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2013 22:43, Patrick wrote:
>>>
>>> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here. You don't accept
>>> any type of proof. So... stop asking.
>>>
>> What complete nonsense on every level, Patrick.
>
> I'm not the whiner asking for proof that God exists.
>

No, Patrick - you are the utter moron who claimed such proofs exists!

>
> If the dork can't figure out why people believe, that person deserves
> to be given the "proof" that he/she NEEDs.
>

No-one asked why people believe.

[The Magpie]

On 27/03/2013 01:00, Patrick wrote:
> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and
>> proof?
>
> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be
> true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt.
> Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
>
> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided
> absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>

No Patrick - you did no such thing. You provided nonsense claims that
I debunked in turn.

>
> Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something.
>

Actually, they are not.

>
> If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were
> there, but not proof.
>

No, that would be suggestive but not evidence.

>
> If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence
> that I robbed a bank.
>

Nonsense.

>
> A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that
> I robbed a bank.
>

No it wouldn't. It could, though, be evidence.

>
> Be wary of lax standards for proof. We all want to know things
> absolutely, which causes us to tend to misinterpret mere evidence
> as proof.
>
> Proof comes from a premise or premisses and an argument. For
> instance:
>
> (1) All cats have fur.
> (2) Fluffy is a cat.
> (3) If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy has fur.
>
> (1) and (2) are premisses. (3) is an argument. If the premisses
> are true and the argument is reasonable, we have proof that Fluffy
> has fur.
>

No we don't - that is a failure to understand simple logic.

[Patrick]

Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>O Patrick wrote:
>> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
>>
>> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true.
>> Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than
>> one evidence can add up to proof.
>>
>> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided absolute
>> proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>No you didn't. All you provided were beliefs.
>Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

You can't even produce evidence that you exist.
You wouldn't accept any evidence if it bit you..

>> Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your
>> jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof.
>
>It may be evidence, but it could have been planted.

But... it is evidence.
That is the point.
Stop quibbling.
You can't have it both ways.

>> If
>> the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I
>> robbed a bank.
>
>Or that you are a wealthy person who doesn't have a bank account.

But... it is evidence.
That is the point.
Stop quibbling.
You can't have it both ways.

>> A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would
>> prove that I robbed a bank.
>
>That would be further evidence. Maybe you were trying to shoot the robbers.

But... it is evidence.
That is the point.
Stop quibbling.
You can't have it both ways.

You know what...
I am done with you.

[Patrick]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
wrote:

Those are the ugliest cats.
I prefer Turkish Angora - white - with odd eyes....

[Patrick]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:11:20 +0000, The Magpie
<use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:

>On 27/03/2013 01:00, Patrick wrote:
>> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and
>>> proof?
>>
>> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be
>> true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt.
>> Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
>>
>> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided
>> absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>No Patrick - you did no such thing. You provided nonsense claims that
>I debunked in turn.

Who are you?
Get in line if you want to try to insult me.
It isn't your turn yet.

>> Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something.
>>
>Actually, they are not.

Not if (I suppose) you were a member of the OJ jury.

>> If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were
>> there, but not proof.
>>
>No, that would be suggestive but not evidence.

And you think I will spend any more time with you?
Guess again.
You are trying so hard to be clever that you don't understand the
reality of a meaningful discussion. If you intend to refute every
single thing I say, well then.... continue without me.
I don't argue with 2 year olds.

[Patrick]

The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:

>No, Patrick - you are the utter moron who claimed such proofs exists!

Same whine, different dork.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:33:01 -0400, Patrick wrote:

> Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>>O Patrick wrote:
>>> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
>>>
>>> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true.
>>> Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more
>>> than one evidence can add up to proof.
>>>
>>> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided
>>> absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>>No you didn't. All you provided were beliefs. Beliefs, opinions and
>>'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
> You can't even produce evidence that you exist. You wouldn't accept any
> evidence if it bit you..
>
>
>>> Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your
>>> jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof.
>>
>>It may be evidence, but it could have been planted.
>
> But... it is evidence.
> That is the point.
> Stop quibbling.
> You can't have it both ways.

You godbots always want it both ways.

>>> If
>>> the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I
>>> robbed a bank.
>>
>>Or that you are a wealthy person who doesn't have a bank account.
>
> But... it is evidence.
> That is the point.
> Stop quibbling.
> You can't have it both ways.

You godbots always want it both ways.

>>> A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that I
>>> robbed a bank.
>>
>>That would be further evidence. Maybe you were trying to shoot the
>>robbers.
>
> But... it is evidence.
> That is the point.
> Stop quibbling.
> You can't have it both ways.

You godbots always want it both ways.

>
> You know what...
> I am done with you.

Thanks for your admission of defeat, Patrick.

[Patrick]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:11:20 +0000, The Magpie
<use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:

>On 27/03/2013 01:00, Patrick wrote:
>> eanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and
>>> proof?
>>
>> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be
>> true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt.
>> Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
>>
>> I provided you with much more than simple evidence. I provided
>> absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>No Patrick - you did no such thing. You provided nonsense claims that
>I debunked in turn.

No, you didn't.

[duke]

Yep, he still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof.

[The Magpie]

On 27/03/2013 18:33, Patrick wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:11:20 +0000, The Magpie
> <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:
>
>> No Patrick - you did no such thing. You provided nonsense claims that
>> I debunked in turn.
>
> Who are you? Get in line if you want to try to insult me.
> It isn't your turn yet.
>

Who I am is irrelevant. And I have not even insulted your rather
fatuous arguments - just debunked them.

>
>>> Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something.
>>>
>> Actually, they are not.
>
> Not if (I suppose) you were a member of the OJ jury.
>

Not if you are anyone. They are evidence your fingerprints are present
and that is all. It does not say anything about how they got there at all.

>
>>> If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were
>>> there, but not proof.
>>>
>> No, that would be suggestive but not evidence.
>
> And you think I will spend any more time with you? Guess again.
>

Frankly no - I expect you to play the theist game and run away from
anyone who can (and does) disprove and debunk your claims.

>
> You are trying so hard to be clever that you don't understand the
> reality of a meaningful discussion. If you intend to refute every
> single thing I say, well then.... continue without me.
> I don't argue with 2 year olds.
>

If you said anything which was true, then I would not debunk it. So
far though you have not - you have just made sweeping claims which are
not at all accurate.

As usual here.

[Patrick]

The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:
>On 27/03/2013 18:33, Patrick wrote:
>
>> And you think I will spend any more time with you? Guess again.
>>
>Frankly no - I expect you to play the theist game and run away from
>anyone who can (and does) disprove and debunk your claims.

Do you really think I am as stupid (as you) and go for the bait?

[arjay]

"Patrick" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jh29l819s9qvk825h...@4ax.com...

You just did.

[Patrick]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:54:32 -0400, "arjay" <ar...@hobbiton.net>
wrote:

Yeah, that is one of the problems I have.

[duke]

Wow, I'd really like to see him at his debunking. I see a lot of fun there.

[Budikka666]

On Mar 29, 7:50 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> Wow, I'd really like to see him at his debunking.  I see a lot of fun there.

That's not what your record shows. Your record shows you to be a
shameless unapologetic COWARD!


Patricketty's cowardice:
http://tinyurl.com/7l5hyw5


Duke Box's cowardice:
Here's an abridged list of threads in which we've posed serious
questions about his position and from which he has run like diarrhea.

Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice:
Challenged to make a case for the existence of his god, cowardly Duke
Box ran away!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/1fca192c3d728ced?scoring=d&
1/5/13

Challenged yet again to provde evidence for his god - Duped RAN AWAY!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/6b639843fdbe4de6?scoring=d&
11/25/2012

Challenged or debate Bible contradictions, Dickhewad Duke-Box RAN
AWAY!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/23e20b2c87b8f0e1?scoring=d&
11/23/2012

Challenged to present his evidence for a creator god, Doofus RAN AWAY!
(Again, yawn).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8a0474ae8eb1ded?scoring=d&
9/29/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on abortion, Duke Box aborted!
http://tinyurl.com/9zgnxcb
9/9/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on the existence of Jesus, Duck & Run
Dipshit-For-Christ Duke RAN:
http://tinyurl.com/7mo8j5l
3/25/2012

In the massive slaughter of Usenet creationists, *every* *single*
*one* of whom fled because they could not post even on item of
positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a creation, Duped
was merely one of a host of creationists who RAN AWAY:
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
(3/18/2012)

Challenged to identify the two species on either side of this "missing
link" he lies exists, Dumbass Duke RAN AWAY!
http://tinyurl.com/7k2w6jc
(2/25/2012)

The Valentine's Day Massacre!
http://tinyurl.com/7mdvcep
(2/14/2012)

Duck & Run starts the new year in fine fettle - runs three times in
one day!
http://tinyurl.com/7eotebl
http://tinyurl.com/7b2waz8
http://tinyurl.com/7o23uvn

Dec 27th, 2011
Challenged to debate his 100% evidence for Jesus, Duck & Run ducked
and ran.
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Dec 26th, 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
*given* *a* *second* *chance* to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/7kawokn

Dec. 24th 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
challenged to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Sept. 5th 2011
asked for evidence for this Jesus of his. Duck & Run ducked & ran!
http://tinyurl.com/3brposl


On January 22, 2011, under the title: "Chicken Duke Has a Beautifully
Clean Pair of heels Does he Not?" We requested "Please provide
independent evidence - that is, from *outside* the Bible - that there
ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle working son of a god."
Chicken Duke couldn't do it.
http://tinyurl.com/4h6wdzm

Then there was this:
http://tinyurl.com/4dk7aoz
Jan 16, 2011, We requested this of Chicken Duke:
please provide *positive* *scientific* evidence for a creator or for a
creation, and post it right here in response to this message.
This was in response to his assertion that "Existence mandates
creation".
He ran away.

http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j
December 22nd 2010, in which Chicken Duke was challenged to support
statements he has made repeatedly on Usenet. Once again he ran from
them like the stinking diarrhea he is and hid behind an irrelevant and
dishoenst non-sequitur.

Prior to that he ran from a similar challenge just the day before(!):
He ran from a challenge to support his bullshit on December 21st,
2010:
http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j

And just the month before that:
http://tinyurl.com/2d5xtf3

November 20th 2010, he ran form these five simple questions rather
than support his god, thereby proving that he's nothing but another
limp Peter at the passion!

Here are the questions:
1. That the figure you quoted is true.
2. That they all believe in the *same* deity.
3. That this single deity actually exists
4. That this single deity actually created the universe
5. That this single deity is not a figment of their imagination
Here's my prediction at the time:
Time to show us that clean pair of heels again, Chicken Duck & Run.
Yep - he ran!

Claimed there are "gargantuan holes" in the Theory of Evolution and
then RAN when we called him on it:
http://tinyurl.com/27kf2da

The entire "Why There Isn't a God" series, started here:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9et

Duck & Run Ran Away - that is to say he failed 100% to actually get to
grips with the subject matter in any of those threads, his 'response'
consisting solely of chanting "no it isn't" or words to that effect.
He could offer no rebuttal, let alone refutation, he could not support
a single thing he claimed and he could offer zero rationale for his
position.

Let's face it, on this basis, he's run away from the entire "Why the
Holy Bible Lies" series, the entire "Why There Was No Flood" series,
and all of the the "Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid"
series so far.

Petition to Save the Hubble Telescope
Duck & Run makes yet another blind claim "Ok, you foot the bill to
keep looking at the same "sky" that's already been looked at" he
blathers, like there couldn't possibly be anything new to discover,
yet we proved him entirely wrong - again.
http://tinyurl.com/74p46nj

Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
http://tinyurl.com/2bx6jcf
Duck & Run, shrouded in cowardice, ran away.

The Inquisition
http://tinyurl.com/4pokf
Duck & Run didn't expect the inquisition....

Another Problem for Creation IDiots
http://tinyurl.com/3px9j
Duck & Run proved to be a creation IDiot.

Human aspect of Jesus
http://tinyurl.com/4w488
Duck and Run has provided us with a de facto admission that there was
no Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-of-a-god.

Jesus's three days sacrifice
http://tinyurl.com/3jhop
Duck & Run sacrificed the truth and got caught.

Which is the real God???
http://tinyurl.com/6bnoo
Duck & Run didn't know.

God isn't very smart about spreading his word, is he?
http://tinyurl.com/7xjux
Neither is Duck & Run.

Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13?
http://tinyurl.com/4v759
Duck & Run opened this thread to accuse someone else of running away.
As soon as he was challenged, Duck & Run ran away!

Why Didn't Jesus Die Sooner?
http://tinyurl.com/5gevm
Duck & Run's claims died sooner.

Why is Duke Such a Coward?
http://tinyurl.com/5p3qt
Duck & Run ran away, proving what a coward he is.

Duck & Run's five evidences of god
(that he later admitted were not evidences):
http://tinyurl.com/3otzr

Questions that Duke Can't Answer
(in which we accused Duck & Run of running away and from which
he...**RAN AWAY**! The questions remain unanswered. There are only
ten numbered questions in this thread, assembled from previous threads
from which
Duck & Run ran away. Duck & Run lied there were 75 questions
and...ran away!)
http://tinyurl.com/5ozyl

There are now well over one hundred unanswered questions that Duck &
Run has fled. Here's the bulk of them:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y

Duck & Run thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven
centuries, gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk
Duck & Run ran away.

Duke: Global Flood Challenge
A thread which we opened specifically at Duck & Run's request, and
from which he, predictably, ran away. He admitted there is no
evidence for a global flood, we presented abundant evidence that there
never was one,
Duck & Run offered zero rebuttal and ran away as he again did in the
recent flood series.
http://tinyurl.com/4l83y

Evidence that Duke can't refute:
http://tinyurl.com/5l2av
Duck & Run failed to refute the evidence and ran away, thereby proving
my case

An Answer to Pascal's Wager
http://tinyurl.com/4y63n
In which we accuse Duck & Run of running away. He ran away!

Thread: "Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly,
Lying, Hypocritical Asshole"
http://tinyurl.com/4ant3
Duck & Run ran away because he's a pathological, unregenerate,
cowardly, lying hypocritical asshole.

Thread: "Duke's Chronic lying"
http://tinyurl.com/3ra8l
Duck & Run ran away.

Thread: "aqotm - bud(ikka) style"
http://tinyurl.com/4r4gz
Duck & Run ran away from his own clueless stupidity

Thread: "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
http://tinyurl.com/3qd5m
Duck & Run was out of his depth - as he's recently proven again - and
so he...ran away!

Thread: "The Bland Assumption of Jesus' Existence"
http://tinyurl.com/5kj3m
Duck & Run ran away as we blandly assumed he would.

Thread: "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke"
http://tinyurl.com/3ozwo
Duck & Run ran away after we ran scriptural circles around him

And my favorite:
http://tinyurl.com/487vc
This was a cowardly thread Duck & Run opened titled "Budikka Runs
Away". He set this up because he was peeved that he didn't get an
instant response from me in another thread! He never told me he'd
opened this alternate thread, yet he accused me of running away in
it! LoL! When we finally happened across it and challenged him in
it, he ran away! How pathetic is that?!

And more than once/month for an entire 12 month period starting April
2009:
April 21st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzywu7q
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrmfxp
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
January 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnesb2
January 24th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
January 27th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycgm8u8
January 31st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 3rd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
February 15th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjjj93v
February 16th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 22nd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ye59brz
March 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ykgtezr
March 6th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjhe3fe
March 9th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnahkb
March 11th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yl8hcea

The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.

He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!

The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.

He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.

He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.

We used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is
no God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). We changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally we didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.

His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aimed at the
material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.

His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.

He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg

It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!

His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc

He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk

He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
http://tinyurl.com/yhyopg
("the same "sky" that's already been looked at."!)
http://tinyurl.com/6fbwqh

He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!

He has numerous documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm

He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. We personally had him run from the *same topic*
well over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!

He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43

He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u (October 22nd 2004)

and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y (July 16th 2005)

In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.

End of Douche. Case closed.

Budikka

[The Magpie]

No bait. Run away if you wish.

[Patrick]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:18:47 +0000, The Magpie

If you have a legitimate question, please provide it.
Just one at a time.
I don't do 600 lines....

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
a bunch of whines that he/she/it claims means something.

It means nothing.
If you want to see evidence or proof that God exists...
Read a dozen posts that I have written.
Stop playing around and claiming no one has answered you.
You no longer have a say here.

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:28:16 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Reading your posts frequently leads people to say "Oh my god, will
this idiot ever do what he says he has done?"
That is not evidence of a god.

[Budikka666]

On Mar 26, 7:15 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> >On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>

> >Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?
> >Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
> >you worthless pile of theist trash?  Is tha thow delusional you are
> >these days?
>
> Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.

Don't condescend me, you pointless Jackass. I'm not your honey and
never will be, You don't even know what gender I am yet you post
genderis trashlike that? Stupidity in the extreme isn't a pretence
with you, is it? You really are as dumb as you look.

> Evidence of God
>
> Long before Galileo turned his telescope toward the stars, men and
> women have wondered about their existence and if there is a God. "Why
> am I here?" and "What happens when I die?" are two fundamental
> questions that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. Answers
> to these questions have been as diverse as the people who've asked
> them.

No scientific evidence. No independent objective evidence. No
surprise.

> It is impossible to prove or disprove if there is a God. In fact, the
> only thing one can do - whether theist or atheist - is point to
> evidence for or against a particular view. And, while there is no
> definitive proof that God does exist, there are many clues. Let us
> briefly examine three: Morality, Beauty, and Desire.

No scientific evidence. No independent objective evidence. No
surprise.

> Most people who dispute the existence of God still operate from a set
> of strongly held moral principles. Yet, they do not have any objective
> basis for why they find some things to be "right" and others "wrong."
> However, a claim that there are right or wrong behaviors demands that
> there is some sort of higher or ultimate standard by which we
> determine right or wrong.  For example, most people would say that it
> is wrong to steal a woman's purse. Regardless of the circumstances
> surrounding a thief's action, there is a basic moral standard in
> operation. Something in us says, "Stealing is wrong." A rational
> person thinks that no matter how a thief might justify his or her
> behavior, taking something for yourself that belongs to someone else
> is morally wrong.  Where do we get this moral standard? The Christian
> faith claims that our idea of right and wrong comes from God, who
> created the world and established the moral order
> If you've ever reacted deeply to a song, a piece of art, or a sunset,
> then you've experienced what might be a clue to the existence of a
> supernatural God.  Our experience of beauty-whether in nature, art, or
> another person-reveals an inescapable sense that there is something
> greater, something more than our own existence.

No scientific evidence. No independent objective evidence. No
surprise.

> Desire may seem like an odd clue pointing to the existence of God. And
> yet, most people would agree that for every desire, there exists
> something in the world that satisfies that desire. We experience
> hunger because food exists; we desire sex because sex exists; and we
> crave companionship because companions exist.  For every desire there
> is a corresponding objective reality.  We do not desire that which
> does not exist. And yet, we desire God. It is a universal experience
> that crosses time, geography, and culture. This may not be proof that
> God exists, but it does strongly suggest that we long for something
> beyond our own knowledge and capacity, for something more important or
> weightier than what we've known or experienced in our own lives.
> While one cannot prove the existence of God, it is possible to
> identify clues that point to a supernatural, higher power. A universal
> moral standard, awe-inspiring beauty, and a desire for things that we
> cannot satisfy in this life are all indicators that there is more to
> this world than this world.http://www.exploringgod.com/questions/is-there-a-god?gclid=CLmxsZqi_r...

No scientific evidence. No independent objective evidence. No
surprise.

Why is it no surprise at all that not a single theist out there can
point to solid science or to independent objectivity nor even to an
intellgient rationale? What lousy pathetic witnnesses you all are.
Why should *anyone* in their right mind even *think* of following you
into your vacuous delusion?

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Mar 27, 6:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:45:56 +0000, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:00:53 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>

> >> eanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
>
> >> Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true.
> >> Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than
> >> one evidence can add up to proof.
>
> >> I provided you with much more than simple evidence.  I provided absolute
> >> proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> >No you didn't. All you provided were beliefs.
>
> Evidence is evidence.

Blind belief is not, nor has it ever been evidence, But thanks for
admitting, along with Patricketty, and every other creaitonist on the
planet that not a one of you can produce positive scientific evidence
for a creation or for a creator, and that not a one of you can produce
independent objective evidence for a creation or for a creator, that
not a one of you can produce even so much as an intellignet rationale
for a creation or for a creator.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
smart to accept your claims.

Budikka

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:50:40 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:01:29 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <knr3l8ptnajr8gjol...@4ax.com>,
>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:33:17 +0000, The Magpie
>>> <use...@pigsinspace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 25/03/2013 22:43, Patrick wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here. You don't accept
>>> >> any type of proof. So... stop asking.
>>> >>
>>> >What complete nonsense on every level, Patrick.
>>>
>>> I'm not the whiner asking for proof that God exists.
>>

>>Nobody's asking for proof, so why do you keep lying and saying they do?

>>Why don't you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
>

>Because you haven't explained it yet.
>Please be specific.

Thanks for admitting that you don't understand the difference.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:26:10 PM UTC-4, % wrote:
> Syd M. wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 12:07 pm, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Believe in Jesus,
>
> >
>
> > No.
>
> >
>
> > PDW
>
>
>
> believe in forgery
>
>
>
> yes

Who forged whom, Zachy. Do you mean like you've been forging padre peeu?

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

>Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
>evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
>if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
>blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
>smart to accept your claims.

IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

The subject that has been suggested is somewhat an involved one, and I
do not know how far this would be a very appropriate theme to discuss
before an audience of this kind who are basically devotees of God and
aspirants of the spiritual ideal of life. However, all visions of life
can be consolidated into a system of integrated organization, and
nothing conceivable can be regarded as extraneous to the methodology
to be adopted in the pursuit of the spiritual ideal.
"Is there a conflict between the scientific method and the religious
aspiration of the soul?" is a moot question. Generally, when people
speak of science, what the common populace understands is the comfort
that has been provided by applied science, such as fast traveling,
telephone, telegraph, Internet, satellite, and television. These are
the things that are in the minds of people when they speak of the
technological advance science has made; but science does not mean
technology. It is a vision of life itself.
What clashes or appears to come in conflict with religion is not the
comfort that has been brought to us by these technological inventions
of applied science, but the theory of science, which is something very
deep, and bordering upon philosophical and metaphysical foundations of
life itself.
That the world is external to everyone is the basic foundation of all
scientific perception. Observation and experiment being the methods of
a scientific process, it goes without saying that what is observed and
experimented upon has to be outside. The outsideness of the world is a
very important aspect to be considered here, but we may put a question
to our own selves: "Is the world really outside us, so that what
happens in the world does not affect us in any way, and the world does
not care for what is happening to us in our own internal operations?
Are the individual and the world, the two principles of consideration
here, segregated from each other? Has the world nothing to do with the
individual, and has the individual nothing to do with the world?" It
looks that there is no communication possible between the individual
and the world. The world may not know at all that some individual is
dead and gone, and the individual is not concerned in any manner if a
star in heaven cools down and extinguishes itself. Let anything happen
to the heavens; what does it matter to us? But, "Is it so?" is the
question.
This supposed conflict between physical science and religion may be
said to have begun somewhere toward the end of the nineteenth century,
when the geocentric interpretation of the heavenly bodies was replaced
by the heliocentric concept on the discovery of Copernicus. This
discovery clashed with the biblical belief and tradition, which holds
that the earth is the foundation, and the sun and the moon and the
stars move round this earth.
The second thing that opposed religion as it was understood in those
days was that the world was created, according to the biblical
tradition, some four thousand years ago, but the scientific discovery
declares that the beginning of the world must be traced back to aeons
and aeons of time process earlier, and the earth is several millions
of years old. This again was a challenge to the medieval concept of
religion.
But the third thing is most important. When Newton discovered the law
of gravitation and concluded that everything that is happening in the
physical world can be mathematically deduced by the logical process of
conclusion drawn from premises, and the world which is physical in its
nature is contained within the cup of space and time, and when his
successor or follower Laplace wrote the five volumes on 'Celestial
Mechanics,' the war between science and religion appeared to have
commenced. We are told that the writings of Laplace were presented to
Napoleon for his consideration. Napoleon seems to have declared,
"Monsieur, I do not see God in your scheme"; and the answer of Laplace
seems to have been, "Your highness, I have used the best of
telescopes, but I have not found God anywhere." This is classical
science: God has to be seen in order to be believed.
Does it follow then that whatever we see with our eyes really exists?
Can we establish logically or scientifically that the world exists at
all? Which scientific procedure can establish the truth of the
externality of the world? Science is against any kind of hypothesis
and taking for granted anything unproved. But is there any proof to
substantiate the belief that the world exists, except the assertion
that it is seen? The senses come in contact with what we call the
panorama of the external world. That is the proof!
Here, science fumbles. It is trying to cut the ground from under its
own feet. Taking anything for granted is not the beginning of science.
We cannot even take for granted that the world exists unless we prove
that it exists. One cannot prove one's own existence even. How do you
know that you are existing? Where is the syllogism by which you have
deduced the consequence of your existence from a premise? What is the
proof that can establish the truth of your own existence? Bring the
argument and let us see what it is that tells you that you really
exist.
It was the French philosopher Rene Descartes who took up this question
of doubting the existence of his own self: "Some devil may be working
in my mind. It may be telling me everything in a topsy-turvy way. The
world may not be there. I may not be here. Everything is doubtful.
There is no certainty of anything. I can doubt the validity of
anything and everything." But he went deeper into this phenomenon of
doubt and discovered that doubt is not possible unless there is
someone who is to doubt; if the doubter also is to be doubted, the
very fact of doubting loses its meaning. Nobody can be an utter
sceptic, because that defeats the very purpose of scepticism. I am
thinking and, therefore, I must be existing. This is Descartes'
conclusion.
What sort of existence is mine? I am conscious that I am existing.
What is that consciousness? "I am an individual; I am Mr. so-and-so,"
is my consciousness of existence. Is the consciousness of the
existence of a personality a complete acceptance of the truth of life?
He concluded that this cannot be the ultimate truth of life because
there is a longing to break the boundaries of personality in everyone.
No one can tolerate finitude. The finite consciousness, which is
proved by the very fact of my knowing that I am, establishes the
validity of there being something which is not finite. What is it that
is not the finite? It should not be a multitude of finites; it should
be the Infinite. My existence as a finite being, substantiated by the
indubitability of this assertion, also brings about a wider unexpected
consequence,-namely the Infinite also should exist; therefore, God
exists. If I am existing, God has to exist, because the concept of God
is only a cosmic correlative of the acceptance of one's own being as a
finite individual. The finiteness of individuality proves the
infinitude of the Truth of life. This smashes the erstwhile concept of
the externality of the world, and the dichotomy that is seen between
the perceiver and the perceived.
Now I am touching upon the threat that theoretical science poses
before religion. Here, it is also necessary to understand what
religion is. Though we are trying to analyse the practical and
theoretical aspects of science, do we know what religion is? Religion
basically is a longing for what is above oneself. There is something
transcending myself; but for that fact, I would be a most happy person
in this world. I would be carefree, secure ultimately, and perfect in
every sense of the term. But no one feels that one is perfect. There
is always a complaint that something is wrong, something is
inadequate, something is insufficient. Finally, there is a threat of
extinction of the existence of the individual himself. Death comes
upon oneself.
These are the fears of the psyche, which have a basis and a
truthfulness in the sense that they indicate the possibility of the
existence of some realm where these insecure conditions are overcome
completely.
The truths of life seem to be in several layers of self-transcendence,
one rising above the other, and the lower does not satisfy until the
next higher one is reached. We can never be satisfied with anything in
this world because satisfaction cannot arise from that which is
totally outside us. The outsideness of the values of life and the
objects supposed to bring us satisfaction defeats the very attempt at
acquiring any kind of permanent joy and satisfaction in this world.
That from which we seek satisfaction, namely the objects of sense, are
incapable of contact by the perceiver because of the fact that they
are outside. We have already dubbed the world as something totally
external to us, unconnected with us, and therefore, we can expect
nothing from the world. Nevertheless, man runs after the pleasures of
life in the form of contact with objects which are totally outside.
Here is a contradiction in the very operation of desire itself. It is
a self- defeating attempt of what we call human desire.
Desire is the longing to possess that which is not within oneself, but
which is outside. But the outsideness of the object prevents its
coming in contact with the experiencing consciousness. So every desire
ends in tragedy, frustration and utter defeat, and no one ever goes
from this world with the satisfaction that the attempt has succeeded.
Everything is lost. The conclusion of the old man who is about to
depart is that the whole life has become futile, and there is no value
or worth in anything, because he has lived a life of pursuing that
which one cannot expect in a world that is totally outside.
The religious ideal is not based on the concept of the externality of
the world, or the internality of anything. The world is neither
outside us, nor is it inside. We are integrally related to the world;
so is the case with the world in respect of our own selves. We are not
sitting outside the world, we are in the world, but not inside the
world as something contained in a pot. The relationship between the
individual and the cosmos is of an organic whole. To put it in a more
plain way, we may say it is something like the organs of the body
getting related to the bodily organism itself. Though the hand and the
feet can be perceived by oneself as objects of sense, they do not
remain as external objects. They are organic parts of the whole body,
which is the transcendence of the limbs. Thus, religion rises above
the classical scientific notion of the externality of the world and
touches upon what we may call the universal concept of the truth of
life.
The Truth, which is the ultimate aim of the religious pursuit, is an
all-comprehensive universal inclusiveness, and here it does not go
hand in hand with classical physics which requires the world to be
totally outside. The clash between physical science in its classical
form and the religious ideal lies in this fact that on one side it is
asserted that the fact of life is a universal inclusiveness; on the
other side, it is asserted that it is totally outside.
Later, towards the middle of the twentieth century, the theories of
science got modified systematically, and more considerate and
investigative scientists found that it is impossible to know anything
unless there is a relationship between the knower and the known. A
totally disconnected object, as the world is, cannot be known by any
individual consciousness. The involvement of the object of perception
in the subjective operation of visualising is necessary in order that
perception can take place at all. There must be an en rapport between
the perceiving consciousness and the perceived object. The two stand
parallel to each other. Neither is the world above the individual, nor
is the individual above the world. They are coeval in time and space.
We are of the same stuff as the world is made of, and we are living in
a realm which is just the physical realm of the five elements. The
world is a constitution of the five physical elements,-earth, water,
fire, air, and ether, which also are the building bricks of the
individual body. The very substance of our physical existence is the
same as the substance of the physical world. The building bricks of
the cosmos are the building bricks of our own personalities. Then, if
that is the case, what is it that makes us feel that we are different
from the world? It is an interference of a particular unintelligible
phenomenon called space and time. Though classical physics from the
point of view of Newton considered that space and time have nothing to
do with the contents of the world, it was later discovered that space
and time are vitally connected with every physical event in the world.
It is in the Taittiriya Upanishad that we hear of the evolutionary
process of the cosmos. Tasmadva etasmadatmana akashah sambhutah: From
the Universal Absolute, the Selfhood of the cosmos, space emanated.
Here, we must realise that even space has a connection with the
Absolute. Akashadvayuh; The principle of air emanated from the
vibrations of space. Vayoragnih; Friction created by the movement of
air created heat, which is fire. Agnerapah; The condensation of the
heat of fire produced the liquid condition of the world, which is
water. The solidification of water became the earth principle, Adbhyah
prithivi. Prithivya oshadhayah: From the earth arise all herbs, plants
and trees, which are the foodstuff of animals and human beings.
Oshadhibhyannam; All that we eat arises from the plants and trees and
vegetables and such edible articles produced by the earth.
Annatpurushah; The human arises as a latecomer in the process of
evolution. This physical body is annamaya, constituted of the
foodstuff which is the earth principle, which again is an evolutionary
consequence of the water principle, that again of the fire principle,
the fire principle of the air principle, the air principle of the
space principle, and the space principle is rooted in the Universal
Existence.
So, you can know your connection with the Ultimate Reality. We are
sunk deep in Ultimate Being. We are an automatic evolute in the lowest
form of its expression, in its physical, material form, which is the
spatio-temporal expression of the non-spatial and non-temporal Supreme
Being which is Ultimate Consciousness: satyam jnanamanantam brahma.
Lofty is this concept. Today, the more understanding type of physical
scientists have practically stumbled upon this great concept of the
Upanishads. Mathematicians who declared that the world is only
equations, point events, and waves of probability, or a continuum of
some indescribable stuff which is incapable of description, have
inadvertently been forced to accept that existence is indivisible.
This conclusion should be drawn by the consciousness of the scientist
himself.
The great physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington, who would not accept that
there is God or such a thing as consciousness, fell upon this
acceptance inadvertently, unconsciously, as it were. In his great book
"The Nature of the Physical World," he utters gospel truth: "The stuff
of the world is consciousness."
Science misunderstood is a threat to religion; if you consider it only
as a technological process of flying with great speed, and working
through satellite, television and internet, that would be a poor
concept of science. Science is noble investigative procedure, which
can take us to the depths of the secrets of life, if dispassionately
we go with it.
Here is an unexpected discovery of science that the stuff of the world
has to be consciousness. Why is it so? It is because the world has to
be known in order that it may be accepted to exist. Who is telling you
that the world is existing? Your consciousness is telling this. How
does the consciousness know that the world is existing, unless this
consciousness is pervading the world of perception? The imbibition of
the very structure of the physical world into the structure of
consciousness is the reason why we believe in the existence of a
world, and that it is outside. So, there is finally no conflict
between the highest discoveries of science and the noble aspirations
of religion.
By "religion" we are not meaning Hinduism, Christianity,
Buddhism,-this "ism," that "ism," and all that. These are all
designated denominational forms of the true meaning of religion.
Religion is the aspiration of the soul for its ultimate destiny. It is
a search of the individual for the Absolute. It is a longing of the
spirit within us for God Almighty. It has nothing to do with any
"ism," and no one can be free from this eternal longing for
perfection, which may better be called spiritual aspiration rather
than a religious longing, because of the abuse of the word "religion"
in modern times, under historical circumstances, and in the studies in
schools and colleges.
People who are now considering themselves as scientists and very
advanced in logical thinking pooh-pooh religion, thinking that it is
an old grandmother's story, because their idea of religion is so poor,
as is their concept of science. There is a tragedy that has befallen
every one of us in our not being able to be precise in our knowledge
of things, whether it is scientific or religious.
There is no conflict. There was a time in the Middle Ages when
physical science appeared to be clashing with the theological
doctrines of the church. The church excommnunicated many scientists,
and they were punished with severe indictments from the Pope. An
inquisition was set up in the Middle Ages,-for us, very unthinkable,
indeed. People were burnt, thrown into the flames by dogmatic
religious followers, and science retaliated and disconnected itself
from the Pope.
Today we are in a different world altogether. The conflict has ceased;
at least, it is appearing to be ceasing. Though it was once said, "The
East is East and the West is West, and the twain shall never meet," I
think today it is attempting to come together, and is meeting. The
West and the East wish to shake hands with each other and accept their
common heritage as human beings, rather than Westerners and
Easterners, scientists and religious followers, seekers of God and
seekers of material values.
There are several textbooks written these days, where powerful
monograph have gone into the depths of this harmony that is already
existing between the external and the universal. Though the external
may be different from the internal, it cannot be external to the
universal. The universal is a transcendent element which rises above
both the subjective side and the objective side. We cannot even know
that there is anything outside us unless there is a third element
which is not ourselves, and not the object that is perceived, also.
Because of the externality of the object of perception and the
internality of consciousness, there is no connection between the two,
and knowledge is impossible; no one can know that anything is. But
there is a transcendent principle. Eastern thought considers this as
adhidaiva, a spiritual principle operating as a transcendental
element,-unknown and unperceivable, but operating between the
subjective side and the objective side.
The subjective side is called the adhyatma, the objective is
adhibhauta, and the transcendent is adhidaiva. All the three have to
work together in order that there may be perception at all. But we are
so poor in our understanding that we know little of ourselves, and
much less of the world, and nothing at all of this transcendental
operation. Gods are behind our eyes and ears, our nose and tongue, and
our sensations. These gods which are the denizens of heaven are the
operators of this mechanism called the physical body with its sense
organs. It is a presumption on the part of the egoistic individual to
think that he or she is working. The workers are the great divine
beings which are transcendent adhidaivas,-gods in heaven, as we call
them. But they are invisible. They are invisible because they are
neither inside nor outside; they are "above."
Here is a path-finding direction for both science and religion, so
that if they work together in harmony they can create a world of joy
and satisfaction that life is worth living. Do you want to depart from
this world with the tragic feeling that nothing has been achieved? The
world has eluded the grasp of everybody. Kings have come, empires rose
and fell, and the earth has not changed. It appears to be so because
of our wrong evaluation of the historical process. History is actually
a natural process of the cosmos. It is the total operation taking
place in the whole of creation, even when a little event is taking
place somewhere in a corner of the world. Our learned speaker
mentioned about quantum mechanics and the discoveries of relativity,
etc., which highlighted the astounding truth of sudden and
simultaneous action taking place in the universe. Every event is a
simultaneous event. It is not taking place yesterday and tomorrow; it
is just now, everywhere.
Did not the poet tell us that we cannot touch the petals of a flower
in our garden without disturbing the stars in the heavens? It is not
poetry; it is the truth. Every event is a universal event. Anything
that is taking place anywhere takes place everywhere, and we are
living throughout the universe, in all parts of the cosmos. Our
individuality is not confined merely to this earth planet. It is
everywhere in different parts.
Scientists today have discovered the possibility of worlds within
worlds, and the possibility of many worlds, and our being inhabitants
of all these worlds simultaneously. "Simultaneously" is the word we
have to underline. We are not inhabiting these many worlds in
succession,-today here, tomorrow somewhere else. At one stroke, in a
timeless manner, we inhabit the whole cosmos, and we are world
citizens working in different forms. Unknown to our own selves, one
part of ourselves is here on this earth performing activities in this
way, and another part of our own archetypal nature is in the heaven,
even today.
Our higher self in the heaven is pulling us and summoning us: "Come
on. You are not here, where you appear to be. You are in the heaven."
That is why we are longing for the higher values of life, and we can
never be satisfied; we are always unsatisfied because we are not in
this world. We are really in some other world,-not only in some other
world, we are in all the worlds. This universal operation of
individuals is a great discovery of modern Quantum Mechanics, which is
quite different from that science which appears to be in conflict with
religion. Science has become spirituality; physics has become
metaphysics.
This is a wonder toward the end of the twentieth century that we are
seeing; we believe that God shall come. The kingdom of heaven is
within us; it is within us, because it is everywhere. How can a large
kingdom be contained within our little frame of physical existence? It
is because the inwardness of our existence is not actually the
physical inwardness. The whole universe can be within us.
It is the Chandogya Upanishad which tells us that whatever is
happening in the outside world is happening within us. If the sun is
shining there, it is shining inside, also. If it is hot outside, it is
hot inside, also. If it is raining outside, it is raining inside,
also. If there is thunder there, there is thunder here, also. But we
are so stupid that we cannot realise these events are taking place
within us, commensurate with all the things that are happening outside
in the world.
We are the world; thus, the discovery of science today tells us. This
is what the great Yoga Vasishtha scripture tells us. This is what the
Upanishads tell us. It is not merely the twain of West and East that
is coming together; God and man are shaking hands with each other in
this vast kingdom of universal creation.

http://www.dlshq.org/messages/scichalrel.htm

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Don't condescend me, you pointless Jackass. I'm not your honey and
>never will be, You don't even know what gender I am yet you post
>genderis trashlike that? Stupidity in the extreme isn't a pretence
>with you, is it? You really are as dumb as you look.
>

What kind of name is buddyka?
Sounds like a retarded junior high school boy.
Who are you? What are you? Why are you whining on a Catholic
newsgroup?

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new
survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research
they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to
debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and
attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences,
the study found.
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like
physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God.
Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund
surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking
36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would
be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but
our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe,
while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76
percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in
some sort of afterlife.
"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said
today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not
attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who
don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They
have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the
meaning of life."
Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some
of the participants to try and figure it all out.
http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Blind belief is not, nor has it ever been evidence, But thanks for
>admitting, along with Patricketty, and every other creaitonist on the
>planet that not a one of you can produce positive scientific evidence
>for a creation or for a creator, and that not a one of you can produce
>independent objective evidence for a creation or for a creator, that
>not a one of you can produce even so much as an intellignet rationale
>for a creation or for a creator.
>

Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
By
A. CRESSY MORRISON,
Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences
WE ARE STILL IN THE DAWN of the scientific age, and every increase of
light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator.
We have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific
humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching ever
nearer to an awareness of God.
For myself, I count seven reasons for my faith:
First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe
was designed and executed by a great engineering intelligence.
Suppose you put ten pennies, marked from one to ten, into your pocket
and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence
from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all
again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number
one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100;
of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in 1000, and so on;
your chance of drawing them all, from number one to number ten in
succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one in ten billion.
By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for
life on the earth that they could not possibly exist in proper
relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis 1000 miles an
hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and
nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely
burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any
surviving sprout might well freeze.
Again the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000
degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this
"eternal life" warms us just enough and not too much ! If the sun gave
off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it
gave as much more, we would roast.
The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our
seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean
would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our
moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance,
our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would
be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away. If the
crust of the earth had only been ten feet thicker, there would be no
oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few
feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no
vegetable life could exist.
It is apparent from these and a host of other examples that there is
not one chance in billions that life on our planet is an accident.
Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a
manifestation of an all-pervading Intelligence.
What life itself is, no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor
dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock.
Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the elements,
compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations.
Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs
every leaf of every tree, and colors every flower. Life is a musician
and has taught each bird to sing its love song, the insects to call
one another in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a
sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the
rose, changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood, and, in so
doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life.
Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent, jellylike,
capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this
transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life,
and has power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and
small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and
animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create
life; fire-blistered rocks and a saltless sea could not meet the
necessary requirements.
Who, then, has put it here?
Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused
instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures.
The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own
river, and travels up the very side of the river into which flows the
tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you
transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off
his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream
and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny accurately.
Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing
creatures migrate at maturity from ponds and rivers everywhere - those
from Europe across thousands of miles of ocean - all bound for the
same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little
ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are
in a wilderness of water, nevertheless start back and find their way
not only to the very shore from which their parents came but thence to
the selfsame rivers, lakes or little ponds. No American eel has ever
been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has
even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to
make up for its longer journey. Where does the directional impulse
originate?
Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of
reason.
No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten, or
even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single
note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all
the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabor
this fourth point; thanks to human reason we can contemplate the
possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a
spark of Universal Intelligence.
Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in such phenomena as the
wonders of genes.
So tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all
living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be
less than a thimbleful. Yet these genes inhabit every living cell and
are the keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A
thimble is a small place to hold all the individual characteristics of
almost three billion human beings. However, the facts are beyond
question.
Here evolution really begins - at the cell, the entity which holds and
carries the genes. That the ultra-microscopic gene can absolutely rule
all life on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that
could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence; no other hypothesis
will serve.
Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only
infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute
husbandry.
Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a
protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia, the cactus
soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until
the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding
inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms.
Seeking a defense, entomologists scoured the world; finally they
turned up an insect which lived exclusively on cactus, and would eat
nothing else. It would breed freely, too; and it had no enemies in
Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable, and today the cactus
pest has retreated - and with it all but a small protective residue of
the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check forever.
Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not
fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs
such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects
grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of
the body. Hence there never has been an insect of great size; this
limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical
check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a
hornet as big as a lion !
Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a
unique proof.
The conception of God rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared
with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its
power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The
vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man's perfected
imagination becomes a spiritual reality, he may discern in all the
evidence of design and purpose the great truth that heaven is wherever
and whatever; that God is everywhere and in everything that nowhere so
close as in our hearts.
It is scientifically as well as imaginatively true, as the Psalmist
said: The heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth
His handiwork.
http://www.dlshq.org/messages/sciblgod.htm

[Ralph]

On 3/30/2013 6:44 PM, Patrick wrote:
> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
>> evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
>> if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
>> blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
>> smart to accept your claims.
> IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
> By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA
>

Bullshit clipped.

Oops, nothing left.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <pjqel89duu7ppr32o...@4ax.com>,

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
> >evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
> >if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
> >blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
> >smart to accept your claims.
>
> IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
> By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

How is that opinion piece positive scientific evidence of a creator or
for a creation?

And since that is what you were asked for, you have just admitted that
you do not have "the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but

blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be smart
to accept your claims".

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <gsqel8lshevrgtf6m...@4ax.com>,

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >Blind belief is not, nor has it ever been evidence, But thanks for
> >admitting, along with Patricketty, and every other creaitonist on the
> >planet that not a one of you can produce positive scientific evidence
> >for a creation or for a creator, and that not a one of you can produce
> >independent objective evidence for a creation or for a creator, that
> >not a one of you can produce even so much as an intellignet rationale
> >for a creation or for a creator.
> >
> Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God

<snipping garbage>

Why did you post this irrelevant opinion piece when you were asked for
positive scientific evidence for your assertions?

[duke]

Then why are you still here?

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:55:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

Why do you always ask questions like a 3 year old rather than offer opinions?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:55:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Patrick knows that he has absolutely no positive scientific evidence for
his assertions. He hopes that he can hornswoggle you with the lies
worked on him, the lies that he was told by his religious leaders.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:40:33 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:55:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <gsqel8lshevrgtf6m...@4ax.com>,
>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Blind belief is not, nor has it ever been evidence, But thanks for
>>> >admitting, along with Patricketty, and every other creaitonist on the
>>> >planet that not a one of you can produce positive scientific evidence
>>> >for a creation or for a creator, and that not a one of you can produce
>>> >independent objective evidence for a creation or for a creator, that
>>> >not a one of you can produce even so much as an intellignet rationale
>>> >for a creation or for a creator.
>>> >
>>> Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
>>
>>
>><snipping garbage>
>>
>>Why did you post this irrelevant opinion piece when you were asked for
>>positive scientific evidence for your assertions?
>
>Why do you always ask questions like a 3 year old rather than offer opinions?

Why do you keep offering empty religious doctrine when people ask for
evidence?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:55:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

Because he's a moron, and because he has none.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:52:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <pjqel89duu7ppr32o...@4ax.com>,
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
>> >evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
>> >if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
>> >blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
>> >smart to accept your claims.
>>
>> IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
>> By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA
>
>How is that opinion piece positive scientific evidence of a creator or
>for a creation?

How is an opinion -- proof or evidence that God does not exist?

[Patrick]

<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mar 26, 7:15�am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >On Mar 25, 5:43�pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>>
>> >Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?
>> >Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
>> >you worthless pile of theist trash? �Is tha thow delusional you are
>> >these days?
>>
>> Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.
>
>Don't condescend me, you pointless Jackass.

Gosh, hon... are you a little irritated?
What up with that?
You whine and demand evidence.
I provide it.
And you pretend that I said nothing.
I have asked you a dozen time to provide some evidence that anything
exists. I mean -- positive evidence. Evidence that can be
identified, verified, peer reviewed. Once I see YOUR evidence for
something, then I will an idea of what type of evidence you demand.
Until then, you will just have to FO.

> I'm not your honey and
>never will be, You don't even know what gender I am yet you post
>genderis trashlike that? Stupidity in the extreme isn't a pretence
>with you, is it? You really are as dumb as you look.

Someone told me you are a cunt.
Makes sense to me.
I thought I kill-filed you.
You never contribute to a single discussion.
You are just like duca, with your whiney one liners.


>> Evidence of God

>No scientific evidence. No independent objective evidence. No
>surprise.
>
>Why is it no surprise at all that not a single theist out there can
>point to solid science or to independent objectivity nor even to an
>intellgient rationale?

You have yet to provide me with the type of evidence that you demand.
You can whine all you like.
Lay on the kitchen floor, kick your heels and hold your breath.
I will just laugh at you and go my merry way.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:44:32 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
>>evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
>>if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
>>blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
>>smart to accept your claims.
>
>IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
>By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

This resolves to "Prove you exist."

" Can we establish logically or scientifically that the world exists
at all?"

http://www.dlshq.org/messages/scichalrel.htm

Had Patrick ("I have loozers like you who do all my reading for me."
and "You actually read all that crap? God, you really are pathetic,
aren't you?"
actually read it and thought about it he might come to this
conclusion.

Two things Patrick.
When someone starts talking about science and demands proof it shows
they do not understand science.

It's may not be plagiarism if you provide a link, but is a copyright
violation.

But that's OK. It shows to the world that you don't care enough to
learn and have little respect for what your church teaches or people
in general.

[Budikka666]

On Mar 30, 5:47 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Don't condescend me, you pointless Jackass.  I'm not your honey and
> >never will be, You don't even know what gender I am yet you post
> >genderis trashlike that?  Stupidity in the extreme isn't a pretence
> >with you, is it?  You really are as dumb as you look.
>
> What kind of name is buddyka?
> Sounds like a retarded junior high school boy.
> Who are you?  What are you?  Why are you whining on a Catholic
> newsgroup?

I see no evidence whatsoever that you're even a Christian, let alone
provision of ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
> About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new
> survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research
> they do.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to
> debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
> Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and
> attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences,
> the study found.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> The opposite had been expected.
> Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like
> physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God.
> Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund
> surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking
> 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> "Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would
> be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but
> our data  showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe,
> while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
> In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76
> percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in
> some sort of afterlife.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> "Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said
> today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not
> attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who
> don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They
> have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the
> meaning of life."
> Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some

> of the participants to try and figure it all out.http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-d...

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot provide any evidence at all,
and all you can do is waffle about what people *believe*, not what
they've demonstrated scientifically.

Thank you for proving that all those messages you've posted about
providing evidence in previous messages nothing but pathetic little
theist lies.

Thank you proving that you cannot turn the other cheek and you cannot
go the extra mile and therefore you aren't even a Christian as is
commonly understood.

So what good are you?

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Mar 30, 5:44 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> That the world is external to everyone is the basic foundation of all
> scientific perception. Observation and experiment being the methods of
> a scientific process, it goes without saying that what is observed and
> experimented upon has to be outside. The outsideness of the world is a
> very important aspect to be considered here, but we may put a question
> to our own selves: "Is the world really outside us, so that what
> happens in the world does not affect us in any way, and the world does
> not care for what is happening to us in our own internal operations?
> Are the individual and the world, the two principles of consideration
> here, segregated from each other? Has the world nothing to do with the
> individual, and has the individual nothing to do with the world?" It
> looks that there is no communication possible between the individual
> and the world. The world may not know at all that some individual is
> dead and gone, and the individual is not concerned in any manner if a
> star in heaven cools down and extinguishes itself. Let anything happen
> to the heavens; what does it matter to us? But, "Is it so?" is the
> question.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

> This supposed conflict between physical science and religion may be
> said to have begun somewhere toward the end of the nineteenth century,
> when the geocentric interpretation of the heavenly bodies was replaced
> by the heliocentric concept on the discovery of Copernicus. This
> discovery clashed with the biblical belief and tradition, which holds
> that the earth is the foundation, and the sun and the moon and the
> stars move round this earth.
> The second thing that opposed religion as it was understood in those
> days was that the world was created, according to the biblical
> tradition, some four thousand years ago, but the scientific discovery
> declares that the beginning of the world must be traced back to aeons
> and aeons of time process earlier, and the earth is several millions
> of years old. This again was a challenge to the medieval concept of
> religion.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

I see no provision of even one example of ***POSITIVE***
***SCIENTIFIC*** evidence for a creator or for a creation. You lose.

[Budikka666]

On Mar 30, 5:48 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

[Budikka666]

Here's an abridged list of threads in which we've posed serious
questions about his position and from which he has run like diarrhea.

Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice:
Challenged to make a case for the existence of his god, cowardly Duke
Box ran away!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/1fca192c3d728ced?scoring=d&
1/5/13

Challenged yet again to provde evidence for his god - Duped RAN AWAY!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/6b639843fdbe4de6?scoring=d&
11/25/2012

Challenged or debate Bible contradictions, Dickhewad Duke-Box RAN
AWAY!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/23e20b2c87b8f0e1?scoring=d&
11/23/2012

Challenged to present his evidence for a creator god, Doofus RAN AWAY!
(Again, yawn).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8a0474ae8eb1ded?scoring=d&
9/29/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on abortion, Duke Box aborted!
http://tinyurl.com/9zgnxcb
9/9/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on the existence of Jesus, Duck & Run
Dipshit-For-Christ Duke RAN:
http://tinyurl.com/7mo8j5l
3/25/2012

In the massive slaughter of Usenet creationists, *every* *single*
*one* of whom fled because they could not post even on item of
positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a creation, Duped
was merely one of a host of creationists who RAN AWAY:
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
(3/18/2012)

Challenged to identify the two species on either side of this "missing
link" he lies exists, Dumbass Duke RAN AWAY!
http://tinyurl.com/7k2w6jc
(2/25/2012)

The Valentine's Day Massacre!
http://tinyurl.com/7mdvcep
(2/14/2012)

Duck & Run starts the new year in fine fettle - runs three times in
one day!
http://tinyurl.com/7eotebl
http://tinyurl.com/7b2waz8
http://tinyurl.com/7o23uvn

Dec 27th, 2011
Challenged to debate his 100% evidence for Jesus, Duck & Run ducked
and ran.
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Dec 26th, 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
*given* *a* *second* *chance* to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/7kawokn

Dec. 24th 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
challenged to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Sept. 5th 2011
asked for evidence for this Jesus of his. Duck & Run ducked & ran!
http://tinyurl.com/3brposl


On January 22, 2011, under the title: "Chicken Duke Has a Beautifully
Clean Pair of heels Does he Not?" We requested "Please provide
independent evidence - that is, from *outside* the Bible - that there
ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle working son of a god."
Chicken Duke couldn't do it.
http://tinyurl.com/4h6wdzm

Then there was this:
http://tinyurl.com/4dk7aoz
Jan 16, 2011, We requested this of Chicken Duke:
please provide *positive* *scientific* evidence for a creator or for a
creation, and post it right here in response to this message.
This was in response to his assertion that "Existence mandates
creation".
He ran away.

http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j
December 22nd 2010, in which Chicken Duke was challenged to support
statements he has made repeatedly on Usenet. Once again he ran from
them like the stinking diarrhea he is and hid behind an irrelevant and
dishoenst non-sequitur.

Prior to that he ran from a similar challenge just the day before(!):
He ran from a challenge to support his bullshit on December 21st,
2010:
http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j

And just the month before that:
http://tinyurl.com/2d5xtf3

November 20th 2010, he ran form these five simple questions rather
than support his god, thereby proving that he's nothing but another
limp Peter at the passion!

Here are the questions:
1. That the figure you quoted is true.
2. That they all believe in the *same* deity.
3. That this single deity actually exists
4. That this single deity actually created the universe
5. That this single deity is not a figment of their imagination
Here's my prediction at the time:
Time to show us that clean pair of heels again, Chicken Duck & Run.
Yep - he ran!

Claimed there are "gargantuan holes" in the Theory of Evolution and
then RAN when we called him on it:
http://tinyurl.com/27kf2da

The entire "Why There Isn't a God" series, started here:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9et

Duck & Run Ran Away - that is to say he failed 100% to actually get to
grips with the subject matter in any of those threads, his 'response'
consisting solely of chanting "no it isn't" or words to that effect.
He could offer no rebuttal, let alone refutation, he could not support
a single thing he claimed and he could offer zero rationale for his
position.

Let's face it, on this basis, he's run away from the entire "Why the
Holy Bible Lies" series, the entire "Why There Was No Flood" series,
and all of the the "Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid"
series so far.

Petition to Save the Hubble Telescope
Duck & Run makes yet another blind claim "Ok, you foot the bill to
keep looking at the same "sky" that's already been looked at" he
blathers, like there couldn't possibly be anything new to discover,
yet we proved him entirely wrong - again.
http://tinyurl.com/74p46nj

Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
http://tinyurl.com/2bx6jcf
Duck & Run, shrouded in cowardice, ran away.

The Inquisition
http://tinyurl.com/4pokf
Duck & Run didn't expect the inquisition....

Another Problem for Creation IDiots
http://tinyurl.com/3px9j
Duck & Run proved to be a creation IDiot.

Human aspect of Jesus
http://tinyurl.com/4w488
Duck and Run has provided us with a de facto admission that there was
no Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-of-a-god.

Jesus's three days sacrifice
http://tinyurl.com/3jhop
Duck & Run sacrificed the truth and got caught.

Which is the real God???
http://tinyurl.com/6bnoo
Duck & Run didn't know.

God isn't very smart about spreading his word, is he?
http://tinyurl.com/7xjux
Neither is Duck & Run.

Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13?
http://tinyurl.com/4v759
Duck & Run opened this thread to accuse someone else of running away.
As soon as he was challenged, Duck & Run ran away!

Why Didn't Jesus Die Sooner?
http://tinyurl.com/5gevm
Duck & Run's claims died sooner.

Why is Duke Such a Coward?
http://tinyurl.com/5p3qt
Duck & Run ran away, proving what a coward he is.

Duck & Run's five evidences of god
(that he later admitted were not evidences):
http://tinyurl.com/3otzr

Questions that Duke Can't Answer
(in which we accused Duck & Run of running away and from which
he...**RAN AWAY**! The questions remain unanswered. There are only
ten numbered questions in this thread, assembled from previous threads
from which
Duck & Run ran away. Duck & Run lied there were 75 questions
and...ran away!)
http://tinyurl.com/5ozyl

There are now well over one hundred unanswered questions that Duck &
Run has fled. Here's the bulk of them:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y

Duck & Run thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven
centuries, gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk
Duck & Run ran away.

Duke: Global Flood Challenge
A thread which we opened specifically at Duck & Run's request, and
from which he, predictably, ran away. He admitted there is no
evidence for a global flood, we presented abundant evidence that there
never was one,
Duck & Run offered zero rebuttal and ran away as he again did in the
recent flood series.
http://tinyurl.com/4l83y

Evidence that Duke can't refute:
http://tinyurl.com/5l2av
Duck & Run failed to refute the evidence and ran away, thereby proving
my case

An Answer to Pascal's Wager
http://tinyurl.com/4y63n
In which we accuse Duck & Run of running away. He ran away!

Thread: "Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly,
Lying, Hypocritical Asshole"
http://tinyurl.com/4ant3
Duck & Run ran away because he's a pathological, unregenerate,
cowardly, lying hypocritical asshole.

Thread: "Duke's Chronic lying"
http://tinyurl.com/3ra8l
Duck & Run ran away.

Thread: "aqotm - bud(ikka) style"
http://tinyurl.com/4r4gz
Duck & Run ran away from his own clueless stupidity

Thread: "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
http://tinyurl.com/3qd5m
Duck & Run was out of his depth - as he's recently proven again - and
so he...ran away!

Thread: "The Bland Assumption of Jesus' Existence"
http://tinyurl.com/5kj3m
Duck & Run ran away as we blandly assumed he would.

Thread: "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke"
http://tinyurl.com/3ozwo
Duck & Run ran away after we ran scriptural circles around him

And my favorite:
http://tinyurl.com/487vc
This was a cowardly thread Duck & Run opened titled "Budikka Runs
Away". He set this up because he was peeved that he didn't get an
instant response from me in another thread! He never told me he'd
opened this alternate thread, yet he accused me of running away in
it! LoL! When we finally happened across it and challenged him in
it, he ran away! How pathetic is that?!

And more than once/month for an entire 12 month period starting April
2009:
April 21st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzywu7q
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrmfxp
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
January 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnesb2
January 24th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
January 27th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycgm8u8
January 31st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 3rd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
February 15th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjjj93v
February 16th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 22nd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ye59brz
March 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ykgtezr
March 6th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjhe3fe
March 9th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnahkb
March 11th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yl8hcea

The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.

He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!

The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.

He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.

He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.

We used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is
no God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). We changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally we didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.

His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aimed at the
material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.

His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.

He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg

It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!

His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc

He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk

He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
http://tinyurl.com/yhyopg
("the same "sky" that's already been looked at."!)
http://tinyurl.com/6fbwqh

He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!

He has numerous documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm

He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. We personally had him run from the *same topic*
well over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!

He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43

He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u (October 22nd 2004)

and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y (July 16th 2005)

In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.

End of Douche. Case closed.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Mar 31, 12:36 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 26, 7:15 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> Dozens of articles of proof have been posted here.
>
> >> >Do you really believe that lie or do you just hope others will?
> >> >Do you honestly believe anyone will swallow your horseshit any more,
> >> >you worthless pile of theist trash?  Is tha thow delusional you are
> >> >these days?
>
> >> Gosh, tell me what you really think, honey.
>
> >Don't condescend me, you pointless Jackass.
>
> Gosh, hon... are you a little irritated?

Is this what Jesus would say?

> What up with that?

You're proving my point that you Christians are nothing but scum and
hypocritical assholes to boot, so by all means be my guest and run off
your juvenile idiot mouth all you want: every word you post proves my
point - and proves what a lowlife peice of worthless theist trash you
truly are!

I'm really sorry your mother wasn't better at raising you, but then
she probably had a gazillion children like you who should have been
aborted, and would have been if she hadn't been nothing but a baby
mill for your lowlife dad.

OTOH, since you've proven yourself such an excellent propaganda
vehicle for atheism, I guess in the long run, she actually did a good
job on you! lol!

> You whine and demand evidence.

No, I demanded positive scientific evidence and highlighted the words
starkly so that all but the most blind and stupid theist on Usenet
would grasp it. I guess that makes you the most blind and stupid
theist on Usenet! Congratulations. That's quite an achievement for a
congenital loser like you.

Go back and look, numbnuts. Here's what I wrote on March 30th at
1:36pm, Google time:

"Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.

If not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but

blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
smart to accept your claims."

> I provide it.

No you blabbered mindlessly on about what people blindly *believe* and
you had to cut & paste even that! You provided NOT A SHRED OF
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.

> And you pretend that I said nothing.

Nope, I posted a response to every one of those worthless messages
pointing out that you have provided NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.

> I have asked you a dozen time to provide some evidence that anything
> exists.  I mean -- positive evidence.  Evidence that can be
> identified, verified, peer reviewed.  Once I see YOUR evidence for
> something, then I will an idea of what type of evidence you demand.
> Until then, you will just have to FO.

You have provided NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE YOU STUPID
ASSHOLE. You have provided only worthless claims about what people
blindly believe. The fact that you don't even have the first clue
what "scientific evidence" even means such that you have to come
crying to me like a spineless weasel of a child, whining about it
means that you truly are the most ignorant clueless worthless
pointless piece of theist trash ever to walk the Earth, And you have
the blind arrogance and brain-dead hypocrisy to post messages in
alt.atheism? Go fuck yourself and continue to do so until you fuck
some sense into that pigshit you use for brains. Does that clarify it
a bit for you "sweetie"?

> > I'm not your honey and
> >never will be, You don't even know what gender I am yet you post
> >genderis trashlike that?  Stupidity in the extreme isn't a pretence
> >with you, is it?  You really are as dumb as you look.
>
> Someone told me you are a cunt.

And of course you blindly believe whatever you're told which makes you
Usenet's biggest asshole. That's not news, except that if I'm male,
then you've just told everyone you're gay. Catlickers don't smile too
brightly on gays, Patricketty, do they now? And thanks again for
proving what a uselesas and worthelss Christian you are, parroting
second-hand misogynistic bullshit all over Usenet. is that what Jesus
woudl do?

> Makes sense to me.

Of course it would - you're an asshole.

> I thought I kill-filed you.

Thanks for providing yet more evidence of what a cowardly loser for
Christ you are. Don't ever pretend you're any kind of a witness
agian, you witless, killfiling klutz! lol!

> You never contribute to a single discussion.

I've proved to everyone what an asshole you are, how gullible you are,
how vacuous you are, what a hypocrite you are, what a liar you are,
how cowardly you are, how stupid you are, how ignorant you are, how
ill-educated you are, and what a coward you are, and now, evidently,
how gay you are, and therefore even more of a hypocrite and a huge
bigot to chide other gays when you're evidently gay yourself! I think
that's quite enough for one day.

> You are just like duca, with your whiney one liners.

Yeah, that's why I have posted well over ONE THOUSAND ITEMS in the
'Disproving Creation' series. Google it in alt.atheism.

Yeah, that's why I've challenged pretty much every loud-mouthed
creationist on Usenet ot a formal debate only to have them post blind
beliefs like you do, or to have them simply RUN AWAY one after
another. Google it in alt.atheism.

Yeah, that's why I posted 666 examples of macro-evolution. Google it
in alt.atheism.

Yeah, that's why I posted 15 answers to creationists. Google it in
alt.atheism.

Yeah. that's why I posted an entire 'Why There's No God' series.
Google it in alt.atheism.

Yeah, that's why I posted a 'Bible contradictions and absurdities'
series. Google it in alt.atheism.

Other than whining like the little useless cry-baby you are, what have
you done? You certainly haven't witnessed. You certainly haven't
offered an iota of scientific evidence in support of your evidently
quite baseless blind beliefs.

And oh, BTW, thanks yet again for allowing me to prove you an
airheaded. loud-mouthed, clueless LIAR who doesn't even know how to
*pretend* to be a Christian.

> You have yet to provide me with the type of evidence that you demand.

Go ask your science teacher what ***POSITIVE******SCIENTIFIC***
evidence means you abysmally STUPID excuse for a lowlife fuckwit.

Budikka

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <048gl8tv5lk3d2ps8...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:55:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <gsqel8lshevrgtf6m...@4ax.com>,
> > Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Blind belief is not, nor has it ever been evidence, But thanks for
> >> >admitting, along with Patricketty, and every other creaitonist on the
> >> >planet that not a one of you can produce positive scientific evidence
> >> >for a creation or for a creator, and that not a one of you can produce
> >> >independent objective evidence for a creation or for a creator, that
> >> >not a one of you can produce even so much as an intellignet rationale
> >> >for a creation or for a creator.
> >> >
> >> Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
> >
> >
> ><snipping garbage>
> >
> >Why did you post this irrelevant opinion piece when you were asked for
> >positive scientific evidence for your assertions?
>
> Why do you always ask questions like a 3 year old rather than offer opinions?

Deflection noted. Deflection rejected.

Answer the question you were asked.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6ksgl8l296mjenhiq...@4ax.com>,

You were asked for evidence. You provided no evidence. I called you on
it.

Oh, yeah, and where did I claim that anything is "proof or evidence that

God does not exist"?

[Patrick]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

>I'm really sorry your mother wasn't better at raising you, but then
>she probably had a gazillion children like you who should have been
>aborted, and would have been if she hadn't been nothing but a baby
>mill for your lowlife dad.
>

>You have provided NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE YOU STUPID
>ASSHOLE. You have provided only worthless claims about what people
>blindly believe.

>I've proved to everyone what an asshole you are, how gullible you are,
>how vacuous you are, what a hypocrite you are, what a liar you are,
>how cowardly you are, how stupid you are, how ignorant you are, how
>ill-educated you are, and what a coward you are, and now, evidently,
>how gay you are, and therefore even more of a hypocrite and a huge
>bigot to chide other gays when you're evidently gay yourself! I think
>that's quite enough for one day.
>
>> You are just like duca, with your whiney one liners.
>
>Yeah, that's why I have posted well over ONE THOUSAND ITEMS in the
>'Disproving Creation' series. Google it in alt.atheism.

You must be so proud of yourself.
What distinguishes you from dakota, alvinp, duca, or a dozen other ass
wipes? I certainly can't tell.

[duke]

In the case of jdyke, one good question deserves another - only.

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:46:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

wrote:

>In article <6ksgl8l296mjenhiq...@4ax.com>,
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:52:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <pjqel89duu7ppr32o...@4ax.com>,
>> > Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Can you provide ONE example of ***POSITIVE*** ***SCIENTIFIC***
>> >> >evidence for a creator or for a creation? Id so, then please do so.
>> >> >if not, have the decency and integrity to admit you have nothing but
>> >> >blind gullible belief and that no one in their right mind would be
>> >> >smart to accept your claims.
>> >>
>> >> IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
>> >> By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA
>> >
>> >How is that opinion piece positive scientific evidence of a creator or
>> >for a creation?
>>
>> How is an opinion -- proof or evidence that God does not exist?
>
>You were asked for evidence. You provided no evidence. I called you on
>it.
>
>Oh, yeah, and where did I claim that anything is "proof or evidence that
>God does not exist"?

Heeheehee.

[duke]

Why do you think a religious answer is not a valid answer? Heeheehee.