GOD'S DON'T EXIST
The_Sage
all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
something that doesn't exist in nature. Just the claim alone of the existence of
anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming. There is
no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose. The usage of the word
supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that doesn't exist
anywhere except in your imagination.
There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the complete lack of
evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no millions
of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
exist.
The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you talk to.
Ask ten different people what the existential nature of any one God is and you
will get ten different answers. You have nothing logically solid to stand on
when discussing the existential nature of a God because the nature of a God is
in constant flux. It is a slippery little thing that you will never be able to
quite put your finger on. Gods have always been unknowable and unobservable.
People can only tell you storytales of what they hope a God is like. But if you
want evidence and logic from them about the actual provable nature of a God,
forget it, that doesn't exist either.
In the last 100 years, science has given us light, electricity, automobiles,
cellphones, computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning,
vaccines...in other words, practically a whole new civilation. And what has
believing in God done for civilization in the last 10,000 years? Nothing except
Holy Wars and Jihads. Science has caused religion to have lots of egg on its
face in the last 100 years, so what is religions answer to science? Let me tell
you what that answer is and always has been...
How did the universe come into existence?
God just felt like making it that way
How did life appear from non-life?
God just felt like making it that way
How did consciousness develop?
God just felt like making it that way
How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
God just felt like making it that way
Why do planets orbit stars?
God just felt like making it that way
.
.
.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Religion tells us nothing about the
real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to fight in
Wars or Crusades, to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"The illusion that we are separate from one another is an
optical delusion of our consciousness." -- Albert Einstein
=============================================================
bob young
The_Sage wrote:
> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
Groan, in fact 'double groan'
Andrew
> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
> something that doesn't exist in nature.
No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
> Just the claim alone of the existence of
> anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
> require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
> There is
> no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
> existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human
fabrications. The same cannot be said for God.
> The usage of the word
> supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
> logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
> doesn't exist
> anywhere except in your imagination.
You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
>
> There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
> for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
> detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the
> complete lack of
> evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no
> millions
> of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
> would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
> megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
> God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
> thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
> ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
> is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
> presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
> exist.
The very existence of a universe that sprang into existence ex nihilo
with exactly the right (but incredibly highly improbable) conditions
for the begetting of intelligent life might be such evidence.
>
> The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you
> talk to.
> Ask ten different people what the existential nature of any one God is and you
> will get ten different answers. You have nothing logically solid to stand on
> when discussing the existential nature of a God because the nature of a God is
> in constant flux. It is a slippery little thing that you will never be able to
> quite put your finger on.
So when the laws of science change we can say that the laws of nature
don't exist?
> Gods have always been unknowable and unobservable.
> People can only tell you storytales of what they hope a God is like. But if you
> want evidence and logic from them about the actual provable nature of a God,
> forget it, that doesn't exist either.
>
> In the last 100 years, science has given us light, electricity, automobiles,
> cellphones, computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning,
> vaccines...in other words, practically a whole new civilation. And what has
> believing in God done for civilization in the last 10,000 years? Nothing except
> Holy Wars and Jihads. Science has caused religion to have lots of egg on its
> face in the last 100 years, so what is religions answer to science? Let me tell
> you what that answer is and always has been...
This, of course, is the well-known atheist myth that science and
religion are mutually hostile and incompatible. It conveniently forgets
that most of the great scientists have also been religious believers.
>
> How did the universe come into existence?
> God just felt like making it that way
No - the Big Bang theory was developed initially by Georges LeMaitre -
a Catholic priest and commited Christian
> How did life appear from non-life?
> God just felt like making it that way
Do you have a better answer?
> How did consciousness develop?
> God just felt like making it that way
> How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
A good question to ask might be Francis Collins, head f the Human
Genome Project, erxpert on evolutionary theory and commited Christian.
> God just felt like making it that way
> Why do planets orbit stars?
> God just felt like making it that way
No - planets have orbits in accordance with the laws of gravity
enunciated by Newton in his Principia Mathematica. Newton, of course,
was a commited Christian.
> .
> .
> .
> Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Yes - I see the pattern that has built up in your head therough your
devout ignorance of what religious people actually believe.
> Religion tells us nothing about the
> real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
> questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
That's why Einstein said "Religion without science is blind, and
science without religion is lame."
>
> Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
> reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to
> fight in
> Wars or Crusades,
Not that we've needed any religious reasons to do that for the last 500
years. Remind us - what are the religious causes of the 2 Iraq wars? Or
the Vietnam War? Or the Korean War? Or the Falklands War? Or the Second
World War? Or the Spanish Civil War? Or the First World War? Or the
Spanish American War? The 20th Century was awash with blood shed for
secular - sometimes atheistic causes; while for half that century two
of the three major military powers in the world were governed by avowed
atheists.
> to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
> people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
> dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
Again you forget that very large numbers of scientists are religious.
Do you contend that they don't use their minds? Your argument here is
naive, ill-informed and portrays a cartoon version of religious
believers that no doubt allows you to massage your ego. It's
resemblance to reality, however, is minimal.
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> On 2008-02-10 06:46:50 +0000, The_Sage <The_...@everywhere.com> said:
>
> > A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
> > all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
> > therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
> > Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
> > something that doesn't exist in nature.
>
> No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
>
> > Just the claim alone of the existence of
> > anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
> > require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
> > There is
> > no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
> > existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
>
> No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
> Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human
> fabrications. The same cannot be said for God.
ROFL Of course it can, there's nothing to show otherwise
>
>
> > The usage of the word
> > supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
> > logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
> > doesn't exist
> > anywhere except in your imagination.
>
> You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
> author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
Groan
>
>
> >
> > There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
> > for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
> > detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the
> > complete lack of
> > evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no
> > millions
> > of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
> > would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
> > megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
> > God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
> > thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
> > ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
> > is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
> > presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
> > exist.
>
> The very existence of a universe that sprang into existence ex nihilo
> with exactly the right (but incredibly highly improbable) conditions
> for the begetting of intelligent life might be such evidence.
ROFL
>
>
> >
> > The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you
> > talk to.
> > Ask ten different people what the existential nature of any one God is and you
> > will get ten different answers. You have nothing logically solid to stand on
> > when discussing the existential nature of a God because the nature of a God is
> > in constant flux. It is a slippery little thing that you will never be able to
> > quite put your finger on.
>
> So when the laws of science change we can say that the laws of nature
> don't exist?
>
> > Gods have always been unknowable and unobservable.
> > People can only tell you storytales of what they hope a God is like. But if you
> > want evidence and logic from them about the actual provable nature of a God,
> > forget it, that doesn't exist either.
> >
> > In the last 100 years, science has given us light, electricity, automobiles,
> > cellphones, computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning,
> > vaccines...in other words, practically a whole new civilation. And what has
> > believing in God done for civilization in the last 10,000 years? Nothing except
> > Holy Wars and Jihads. Science has caused religion to have lots of egg on its
> > face in the last 100 years, so what is religions answer to science? Let me tell
> > you what that answer is and always has been...
>
> This, of course, is the well-known atheist myth that science and
> religion are mutually hostile and incompatible. It conveniently forgets
> that most of the great scientists have also been religious believers.
sick liar
Andrew
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-10 06:46:50 +0000, The_Sage <The_...@everywhere.com> said:
>>
>>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
>>> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
>>> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
>>> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
>>> something that doesn't exist in nature.
>>
>> No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
>>
>>> Just the claim alone of the existence of
>>> anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
>>> require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
>>> There is
>>> no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
>>> existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
>>
>> No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
>> Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human
>> fabrications. The same cannot be said for God.
>
> ROFL Of course it can, there's nothing to show otherwise
Yes there is. NOBODY believes the Easter Bunny really exists. NOBODY
believes Mother Goose really exists. EVERYBODY knows they are
fabrications. Millions of people do believe that God exists, many of
whom cite personal experience.
>
>>
>>
>>> The usage of the word
>>> supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
>>> logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
>>> doesn't exist
>>> anywhere except in your imagination.
>>
>> You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
>> author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
>
> Groan
Ah! The Bob Young approach to rational argument in all its glory
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
>>> for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
>>> detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the
>>> complete lack of
>>> evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no
>>> millions
>>> of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
>>> would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
>>> megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
>>> God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
>>> thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
>>> ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
>>> is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
>>> presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
>>> exist.
>>
>> The very existence of a universe that sprang into existence ex nihilo
>> with exactly the right (but incredibly highly improbable) conditions
>> for the begetting of intelligent life might be such evidence.
>
> ROFL
Yep! That qualifies as rational argument too. In atheist terms, apparently.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you
>>> talk to.
>>> Ask ten different people what the existential nature of any one God is and you
>>> will get ten different answers. You have nothing logically solid to stand on
>>> when discussing the existential nature of a God because the nature of a God is
>>> in constant flux. It is a slippery little thing that you will never be able to
>>> quite put your finger on.
>>
>> So when the laws of science change we can say that the laws of nature
>> don't exist?
>>
>>> Gods have always been unknowable and unobservable.
>>> People can only tell you storytales of what they hope a God is like. But if you
>>> want evidence and logic from them about the actual provable nature of a God,
>>> forget it, that doesn't exist either.
>>>
>>> In the last 100 years, science has given us light, electricity, automobiles,
>>> cellphones, computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning,
>>> vaccines...in other words, practically a whole new civilation. And what has
>>> believing in God done for civilization in the last 10,000 years? Nothing except
>>> Holy Wars and Jihads. Science has caused religion to have lots of egg on its
>>> face in the last 100 years, so what is religions answer to science? Let me tell
>>> you what that answer is and always has been...
>>
>> This, of course, is the well-known atheist myth that science and
>> religion are mutually hostile and incompatible. It conveniently forgets
>> that most of the great scientists have also been religious believers.
>
> sick liar
Nope - fact. I know you have problems with the idea of 'fact', rather
than dogmatic atheist belief, but even the scantiest bit of reading of
the history of science should do,
Bill M
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008021015013716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
Millons of people also believe in the benefits of rbbits feet and other
charms. This does not make it real.
There is NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence that ANY gods actually exist.
All there that we
have are unsubstantiated and uproven claims. Personal unproven claims are
merely evidence of
flawed reasoning - not objevtive verifiable evidence.
Why would an omipotent creator of this vast complex Universe and humans be
so secretive and hidden?
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
> On 2008-02-10 06:46:50 +0000, The_Sage <The_...@everywhere.com> said:
>
>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is
>> common to
>> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural
>> being,
>> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
>> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it
>> describes
>> something that doesn't exist in nature.
>
> No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
>
>> Just the claim alone of the existence of
>> anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary
>> claims
>> require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
>> There is
>> no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing
>> in the
>> existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
>
> No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
> Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human fabrications.
> The same cannot be said for God.
>
that's where you're wrong, the christian bible and the christian god are
nothing more than the BULLSHIT RAMBLINGS of superstitious cave dwellers and
goat fuckers
you ever notice?, no more superstitious cave dwellers and goat fuckers, and
nothing new from your "god" ever since. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
that's just bullshit, the religous nuts are people that are easily
hypnotized and brainwashed.
Just look at the brainwashed morons that give money to Benny Hinn or Ernest
Angley, other religious people are no different than those morons
Andrew
So you say. But you have yet to suggest what would qualify, in your
view, as objective verifiable evidence. What theoretical or other
construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
its existence?
> All there that we
> have are unsubstantiated and uproven claims. Personal unproven claims are
> merely evidence of
> flawed reasoning - not objevtive verifiable evidence.
>
> Why would an omipotent creator of this vast complex Universe and humans be
> so secretive and hidden?
As I've suggested elsewhere in this post, you are surrounded by a
universe that apparently just 'popped' into existence ex nihilo with
exactly the highly unlikely properties required for the emergence of
intelligent life. Doesn't seem very 'secret' or 'hidden' to me.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
perhaps this all-powerful sky pixie could take a few minutes out of his day
and float down from heaven for all to see
for a few minutes, he could clear the blizzard that is going on here,the
storms in other parts of the world, and he could float down from the heavens
for all of us to see
then he can explain why he sits on his FAT, LAZY ASS, LAUGHING HIS
MOTHERFUCKING ASS off while children are being raped and murdered
let me know what time your sky pixie says he will show up today andrew
actually, he can just instantly make my tv come n, even though it has no
power because of the weather, and he can tell us all when he's going to show
up.
should be easy enough for AN ALL-POWERFUL SUPREME BEING, don't you agree
brainwashed christian nutcase, er, sorry, I mean andrew
The_Sage
>Date written: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:12:39 +0000
>MsgID:<2008021011123916807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>
>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
>> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
>> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
>> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
>> something that doesn't exist in nature.
>No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
"Non-natural" is a non-existent term. You are making stuff up as you go along.
That is so dishonest. Look it up for yourself -- the Gods are defined as
supernatural beings and never, not once, defined as "non-natural" beings.
>> Just the claim alone of the existence of
>> anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
>> require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
>> There is no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
>> existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
>No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
>Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human
>fabrications. The same cannot be said for God.
Like the Easter Bunny and Mother Goose, the supernatural is known to be an
unproven and human fabrication. Your rebuttal is a classic case of the logical
fallacy of the strawman. So yes, it could.
>> The usage of the word
>> supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
>> logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
>> doesn't exist anywhere except in your imagination.
>You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
>author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
All those definitions of God are not by me but by other people. It is also
irrelevant what the theists say since what they say is based on opinions and not
facts and I am only interested in facts.
>> There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
>> for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
>> detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the complete lack of
>> evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no millions
>> of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
>> would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
>> megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
>> God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
>> thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
>> ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
>> is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
>> presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
>> exist.
>The very existence of a universe that sprang into existence ex nihilo
>with exactly the right (but incredibly highly improbable) conditions
>for the begetting of intelligent life might be such evidence.
...or it might not. Even if we pretend that all processes in the Universe were
random (not true), in an infinite Universe with an infinite time at its
disposal, as long the probability is not zero, the improbable will become a
certainty. Being highly improbable of coming into existence still would not
prove a God or Gods exist -- having zero probability and coming into existence
would. But isn't the case now, is it?
>> The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you talk to.
>> Ask ten different people what the existential nature of any one God is and you
>> will get ten different answers. You have nothing logically solid to stand on
>> when discussing the existential nature of a God because the nature of a God is
>> in constant flux. It is a slippery little thing that you will never be able to
>> quite put your finger on.
>So when the laws of science change we can say that the laws of nature
>don't exist?
At least we have laws for nature and science, whereas we have no laws for the
Gods. Gods are supernatural which means neither science nor nature apply to the
Gods, so is it any wonder that people cannot agree what the nature of their Gods
are like?
>> Gods have always been unknowable and unobservable.
>> People can only tell you storytales of what they hope a God is like. But if you
>> want evidence and logic from them about the actual provable nature of a God,
>> forget it, that doesn't exist either.
>> In the last 100 years, science has given us light, electricity, automobiles,
>> cellphones, computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning,
>> vaccines...in other words, practically a whole new civilation. And what has
>> believing in God done for civilization in the last 10,000 years? Nothing except
>> Holy Wars and Jihads. Science has caused religion to have lots of egg on its
>> face in the last 100 years, so what is religions answer to science? Let me tell
>> you what that answer is and always has been...
>This, of course, is the well-known atheist myth that science and
>religion are mutually hostile and incompatible. It conveniently forgets
>that most of the great scientists have also been religious believers.
>> How did the universe come into existence?
>> God just felt like making it that way
>No - the Big Bang theory was developed initially by Georges LeMaitre -
>a Catholic priest and commited Christian
>> How did life appear from non-life?
>> God just felt like making it that way
>Do you have a better answer?
Having no answer does not prove that any arbitrary answer you can come up with
must therefore be the correct one. No answer is the only honest answer, because
it fits the facts.
>> How did consciousness develop?
>> God just felt like making it that way
>> How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
>A good question to ask might be Francis Collins, head f the Human
>Genome Project, erxpert on evolutionary theory and commited Christian.
Francis Collins is not a religion, he is a religious person who is also a
scientist. His science based side has a lot of factual things to say about genes
but his religious based side has nothing factual to say about it...your point
was?
>> God just felt like making it that way
>> Why do planets orbit stars?
>> God just felt like making it that way
>No - planets have orbits in accordance with the laws of gravity
>enunciated by Newton in his Principia Mathematica. Newton, of course,
>was a commited Christian.
>> Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
>Yes - I see the pattern that has built up in your head therough your
>devout ignorance of what religious people actually believe.
Not one scientist with a religious belief who has ever lived was able to base
any of their scientifically accepted observations or discoveries on their
religious belief. Religious beliefs have, without exception, always been
irrelevant to any scientific observations or discoveries.
And it isn't a myth that science and religion are mutaully hostile and
incompatible, it is documented history. Think of Galileo and Copernicus or
Darwin for example.
>> Religion tells us nothing about the
>> real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
>> questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
>That's why Einstein said "Religion without science is blind, and
>science without religion is lame."
And why should I care what Einstein said about anything personal, like religion?
I presume since you value Einstein's opinion so highly, and that Einstein
couldn't be wrong about his belief in God, therefore both of you believe in the
same exact God. So which God did Einstein believe in?
>> Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
>> reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to
>> fight in Wars or Crusades,
>Not that we've needed any religious reasons to do that for the last 500
>years. Remind us - what are the religious causes of the 2 Iraq wars? Or
>the Vietnam War? Or the Korean War? Or the Falklands War? Or the Second
>World War? Or the Spanish Civil War? Or the First World War? Or the
>Spanish American War?
The religious cause of the 2 Iraqi wars has been the Jihads of the Muslims. The
Korean and Vietnam War was fought to protect Americans from the so-called
Godless communists. The Second World War was fought by the Catholic, Adolf
Hitler. The Spanish American War would not have occured if Americans did not
believe in the religious-based Manifest Destiny.
Every single one of those wars you mentioned by name were fought by Americans
governed by avowed Christians. What noble religious reason did Americans give
for fighting and killing in all of those wars?
>The 20th Century was awash with blood shed for
>secular - sometimes atheistic causes; while for half that century two
>of the three major military powers in the world were governed by avowed
>atheists.
It is a myth that any war was fought in the 20th Century for Atheistic causes.
They fought for other causes such as communism or fascism, but never for the
cause of Atheism. You cannot blame any Atheist's actions for anything, on their
belief in Atheism, because Atheism has nothing to say about anything except that
there are no Gods. Nice try but no cigar.
>> to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
>> people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
>> dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
>Again you forget that very large numbers of scientists are religious.
Again you forget that an even greater number of scientists do not believe in
God. You are resorting to the logical fallacy of appeal to numbers and science
is not a democracy. A thousand Frenchmen can be wrong.
>Do you contend that they don't use their minds?
Do you contend that they cannot make mistakes?
>Your argument here is
>naive, ill-informed and portrays a cartoon version of religious
>believers that no doubt allows you to massage your ego. It's
>resemblance to reality, however, is minimal.
Looks like you are describing yourself, since I have turned everyone of your
arguments back on yourself. If at first you don't succeed, give up while you are
ahead.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
[The current anthropomorphic global warming nonsense is
based on] "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar
to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week
from now" -- Dr. Richard Lindzen
=============================================================
Andrew
>> Reply to article by: Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
>> Date written: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:12:39 +0000
>> MsgID:<2008021011123916807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>
>
>>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
>>> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
>>> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
>>> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
>>> something that doesn't exist in nature.
>
>> No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
>
> "Non-natural" is a non-existent term. You are making stuff up as you go along.
> That is so dishonest. Look it up for yourself -- the Gods are defined as
> supernatural beings and never, not once, defined as "non-natural" beings.
Is the term hard to understand? Are you suggesting that it is
illegitimate to communicate the idea that something is not something by
prefixing "non" to the descriptor? The problem is your understanding of
'supernatural' to imply 'divorced from' or 'unconnected to' nature.
This is simply not the Christian understanding of the God that is
responsible for, immanent throughout and intimately involved n, nature
>
>>> Just the claim alone of the existence of
>>> anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
>>> require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
>>> There is no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like
>>> believing in the
>>> existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
>
>> No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
>> Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human
>> fabrications. The same cannot be said for God.
>
> Like the Easter Bunny and Mother Goose, the supernatural is known to be an
> unproven and human fabrication.
No such thing is 'KNOWN'.
> Your rebuttal is a classic case of the logical
> fallacy of the strawman. So yes, it could.
>
>>> The usage of the word
>>> supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
>>> logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
>>> doesn't exist anywhere except in your imagination.
>
>> You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
>> author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
>
> All those definitions of God are not by me but by other people. It is also
> irrelevant what the theists say since what they say is based on
> opinions and not
> facts and I am only interested in facts.
Then try actually employing some. None of the foregoing contains a
single, unarguable fact.
>
>>> There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
>>> for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
>>> detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the
>>> complete lack of
>>> evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no
>>> millions
>>> of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
>>> would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
>>> megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
>>> God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
>>> thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
>>> ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
>>> is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
>>> presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
>>> exist.
>
>> The very existence of a universe that sprang into existence ex nihilo
>> with exactly the right (but incredibly highly improbable) conditions
>> for the begetting of intelligent life might be such evidence.
>
> ...or it might not. Even if we pretend that all processes in the Universe were
> random (not true), in an infinite Universe with an infinite time at its
> disposal, as long the probability is not zero, the improbable will become a
> certainty.
But science tells us we do not have an infinite universe with infinite
time. It tells us we have a finite universe bounded in time at its
beginning.
> Being highly improbable of coming into existence still would not
> prove a God or Gods exist -- having zero probability and coming into existence
> would. But isn't the case now, is it?
The probability is as close to zero as makes no odds in a finite universe.
My point was - and is - that religion and science are not in any way
antithetical. Religious people do science. Non-religious people do
science. The achievements of science are thus utterly irrelevant to the
question of religious belief. Your argument is entirely specious.
>
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>> Why do planets orbit stars?
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>
>> No - planets have orbits in accordance with the laws of gravity
>> enunciated by Newton in his Principia Mathematica. Newton, of course,
>> was a commited Christian.
>
>>> Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
>
>> Yes - I see the pattern that has built up in your head therough your
>> devout ignorance of what religious people actually believe.
>
> Not one scientist with a religious belief who has ever lived was able to base
> any of their scientifically accepted observations or discoveries on their
> religious belief. Religious beliefs have, without exception, always been
> irrelevant to any scientific observations or discoveries.
And vice versa - that's why this whole science-religion question is
entirely irrelevant.
>
> And it isn't a myth that science and religion are mutaully hostile and
> incompatible, it is documented history. Think of Galileo
The devout Catholic
> and Copernicus
The devout Catholic.
Like many of your co-religionists who trot out the Copernican/Galilean
affair, you conveniently forget that the Ptolemaic system was the
scientific othodoxy of the day, and one which fitted everyday
observations pretty well. You forget that it wasn't until Kepler that a
form of the Copernican system was produced that was simpler (and
therefore more acceptable) than the Ptolemaic system and that many
eminent scientists, including Tycho Brahe, continued to accept the
Ptolemaic system for no religious reasons whatsoever, but because it
was scientific orthodoxy and it made sense.
> or
> Darwin
Among whose earliest supporters were eminent churchmen.
> for example.
>
>>> Religion tells us nothing about the
>>> real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
>>> questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
>
>> That's why Einstein said "Religion without science is blind, and
>> science without religion is lame."
>
> And why should I care what Einstein said about anything personal, like
> religion?
> I presume since you value Einstein's opinion so highly, and that Einstein
> couldn't be wrong about his belief in God, therefore both of you believe in the
> same exact God. So which God did Einstein believe in?
I'm not foolish enough to imagine that any human being 'cannot be
wrong' about something - it takes an atheist to have that level of
unquestioning faith.
>
>>> Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
>>> reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to
>>> fight in Wars or Crusades,
>
>> Not that we've needed any religious reasons to do that for the last 500
>> years. Remind us - what are the religious causes of the 2 Iraq wars? Or
>> the Vietnam War? Or the Korean War? Or the Falklands War? Or the Second
>> World War? Or the Spanish Civil War? Or the First World War? Or the
>> Spanish American War?
>
> The religious cause of the 2 Iraqi wars has been the Jihads of the Muslims.
That's bollocks. The first was caused because Saddam Hussein (the
secular head of a secular Iraq) invaded oil-rich Kuwait and thereby
threatened world oil supplies. The second was fought because the
secular USA and associated powers regarded Hussein as a threat to the
stability of the region.
> The
> Korean and Vietnam War was fought to protect Americans from the so-called
> Godless communists.
Nothing so-called about it. Secular state against Communist state over
politics.
> The Second World War was fought by the Catholic, Adolf
> Hitler.
So the Second World War was fought by Germany on behalf of
Catholicism?? Guess that explains why so many German Catholics got that
special invitation to guest in secure accommodation. You really are
desperate there aren't you?
> The Spanish American War would not have occured if Americans did not
> believe in the religious-based Manifest Destiny.
No question of political and imperialist aggrandisement involved then?
>
> Every single one of those wars you mentioned by name were fought by Americans
> governed by avowed Christians. What noble religious reason did Americans give
> for fighting and killing in all of those wars?
None. None whatsoever. They were fought by secular states for secular reasons.
>
>> The 20th Century was awash with blood shed for
>> secular - sometimes atheistic causes; while for half that century two
>> of the three major military powers in the world were governed by avowed
>> atheists.
>
> It is a myth that any war was fought in the 20th Century for Atheistic causes.
> They fought for other causes such as communism or fascism, but never for the
> cause of Atheism. You cannot blame any Atheist's actions for anything, on their
> belief in Atheism, because Atheism has nothing to say about anything
> except that
> there are no Gods. Nice try but no cigar.
That's just closed-minded denial - the kind of denial that makes
Atheism a particularly dangerous religious position at this time. See,
I know what Christians have done in the past and I take steps to avoid
going the same way. Folk like you, you'll step into line when they
strike up the band, secure in the faith that Atheism couldn't do
anything bad.
>
>>> to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
>>> people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
>>> dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
>
>> Again you forget that very large numbers of scientists are religious.
>
> Again you forget that an even greater number of scientists do not believe in
> God.
Last research I saw there wasn't much to call between the figures -
roughly 40%, 40% 20%
> You are resorting to the logical fallacy of appeal to numbers and science
> is not a democracy. A thousand Frenchmen can be wrong.
I'm not doing anything of the sort.
>
>> Do you contend that they don't use their minds?
>
> Do you contend that they cannot make mistakes?
No - I merely contend that it shows that your "analysis" that religious
people do not use their minds but are passively deaf, dumb and blind to
reason is patently false.
>
>> Your argument here is
>> naive, ill-informed and portrays a cartoon version of religious
>> believers that no doubt allows you to massage your ego. It's
>> resemblance to reality, however, is minimal.
>
> Looks like you are describing yourself, since I have turned everyone of your
> arguments back on yourself. If at first you don't succeed, give up
> while you are
> ahead.
In a pig's eye.
Jamffer
"The_Sage" <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:rc6tq3t7j52ierivj...@4ax.com...
> How did the universe come into existence?
> God just felt like making it that way
> How did life appear from non-life?
> God just felt like making it that way
> How did consciousness develop?
> God just felt like making it that way
> How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
> God just felt like making it that way
> Why do planets orbit stars?
> God just felt like making it that way
It's so much easier to say (God did it) than to (think).
And it's so very, convenient.
Jamffer
> On 2008-02-10 15:42:24 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
> > There is NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence that ANY gods actually
exist.
>
> So you say. But you have yet to suggest what would qualify, in your
> view, as objective verifiable evidence. What theoretical or other
> construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
> allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
> its existence?
If I might suggest, (any) verifiable evidence that would remove our doubt,
will do.
I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
>
> > All there that we
> > have are unsubstantiated and uproven claims. Personal unproven claims
are
> > merely evidence of
> > flawed reasoning - not objevtive verifiable evidence.
> >
> > Why would an omipotent creator of this vast complex Universe and humans
be
> > so secretive and hidden?
>
> As I've suggested elsewhere in this post, you are surrounded by a
> universe that apparently just 'popped' into existence ex nihilo with
> exactly the highly unlikely properties required for the emergence of
> intelligent life. Doesn't seem very 'secret' or 'hidden' to me.
I see no evidence of any universe Popping from nothing.
That is, except for ancient myths.
'Revealed' to ancient cave dwellers but not to modern non-superstitious
humans.
"Live every day as though it will repeat forever"
Jamffer
Andrew
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008021016582616807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2008-02-10 15:42:24 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
>>
>>> There is NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence that ANY gods actually
> exist.
>>
>> So you say. But you have yet to suggest what would qualify, in your
>> view, as objective verifiable evidence. What theoretical or other
>> construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
>> allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
>> its existence?
>
> If I might suggest, (any) verifiable evidence that would remove our doubt,
> will do.
That still doesn't address the problem. There is no such thing as
"objective verifiable evidence" - for anything. There are facts.
Whether a fact can be regarded as evidence depends on there being a
theoretical or other mental construct against which it can be matched.
I can show you any number of facts, but whether or not you will regard
them as 'verifiable evidence that would remove (your) doubt' depends on
what you think those facts are supposed to be evidence of.
> I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
> Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
> Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
them.
>
>>
>>> All there that we
>>> have are unsubstantiated and uproven claims. Personal unproven claims
> are
>>> merely evidence of
>>> flawed reasoning - not objevtive verifiable evidence.
>>>
>>> Why would an omipotent creator of this vast complex Universe and humans
> be
>>> so secretive and hidden?
>>
>> As I've suggested elsewhere in this post, you are surrounded by a
>> universe that apparently just 'popped' into existence ex nihilo with
>> exactly the highly unlikely properties required for the emergence of
>> intelligent life. Doesn't seem very 'secret' or 'hidden' to me.
>
> I see no evidence of any universe Popping from nothing.
> That is, except for ancient myths.
Admittedly the Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory - but the cosmic
microwave background is real and fits that theory sufficiently well to
qualify as evidence.
Andrew
Except, of course, that religious people have been engaging with those
questions every bit as much as non-religious people have. Holding the
religious belief that God is ultimately responsible for all that is
does not mean you don't ask questions and it certainly doesn't mean
that you don't think. It just means the questions change:
How did God make the universe come into existence?
How did God make life from non-life?
How did God arrange the laws of nature so that consciousness would develop?
How has God arranged the laws of nature to allow evolution to take place?
How has God arranged the universe so that gravity works?
All these are every bit as stimulating as questions, and have
stimulated Christians to study science and to make significant
scientific discoveries for centuries.
Jamffer
Jamffer
> On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
> > I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
> > Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
> > Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
>
> Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
> way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
> them.
Possibly but they may have seen more (unexplained natural happenings) as
miracles, also.
> > I see no evidence of any universe Popping from nothing.
> > That is, except for ancient myths.
>
> Admittedly the Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory - but the cosmic
> microwave background is real and fits that theory sufficiently well to
> qualify as evidence.
Yes, as evidence that something went Bang to start our present universe
where we live.
But there is that nagging question remaining which is, where did that (stuff
that went Bang) come from?
And another recently discovered inconvenient fact that doesn't fit so well
into the Big Bang scenario.
That fact is, the galaxies moving apart at an increasing speed over time.
That would lend more suspicion to there being more than one universe and
they could be in eternal exchanging cycles.
Death of one causing beginning of another, (just guessing).
Andrew
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008021020293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>>> I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
>>> Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
>>> Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
>>
>> Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
>> way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
>> them.
>
> Possibly but they may have seen more (unexplained natural happenings) as
> miracles, also.
That's possible. Maybe, though, God feels that as we are no longer as
ready to accept the concept of 'miracle' there is less to be gained by
doing them.
>
>
>>> I see no evidence of any universe Popping from nothing.
>>> That is, except for ancient myths.
>>
>> Admittedly the Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory - but the cosmic
>> microwave background is real and fits that theory sufficiently well to
>> qualify as evidence.
>
> Yes, as evidence that something went Bang to start our present universe
> where we live.
> But there is that nagging question remaining which is, where did that (stuff
> that went Bang) come from?
Indeed - that's the problem.
> And another recently discovered inconvenient fact that doesn't fit so well
> into the Big Bang scenario.
> That fact is, the galaxies moving apart at an increasing speed over time.
> That would lend more suspicion to there being more than one universe and
> they could be in eternal exchanging cycles.
> Death of one causing beginning of another, (just guessing).
I don't think the accelerating galaxies issue can be seen as evidence
of other universes. The real problem with it is that it confirms that
the universe cannot be seen as some sort of mammoth vacuum fluctuation.
Jamffer
I think that if we knew the real scenario that it would give us a headache.
If matter ever reverted back to when we would be remade, the amount of time
for that to happen would be so long that there would almost not be enough
zeros to write it down.
But never say never, when we have eternity.
A trillion universe cycles are almost nothing, in eternity.
If one could travel a trillion light years per second in a straight line for
a trillion years and never come to a wall or if there was a wall, what's
beyond?
Our minds cannot quite get hold of eternal thinking yet.
If we could, we could imagine eternal past and future.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<2008021020351475249-thecroft@macunlimitednet>
>>> How did the universe come into existence?
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>> How did life appear from non-life?
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>> How did consciousness develop?
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>> How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>> Why do planets orbit stars?
>>> God just felt like making it that way
>> It's so much easier to say (God did it) than to (think).
>> And it's so very, convenient.
>Except, of course, that religious people have been engaging with those
>questions every bit as much as non-religious people have.
You are confusing religion with religious people. There are no religious texts
that discuss logic or science. They do not encourage that kind of behavior.
>Holding the
>religious belief that God is ultimately responsible for all that is
>does not mean you don't ask questions and it certainly doesn't mean
>that you don't think. It just means the questions change:
>How did God make the universe come into existence?
>How did God make life from non-life?
>How did God arrange the laws of nature so that consciousness would develop?
>How has God arranged the laws of nature to allow evolution to take place?
>How has God arranged the universe so that gravity works?
>All these are every bit as stimulating as questions, and have
>stimulated Christians to study science and to make significant
>scientific discoveries for centuries.
But history paints a much different picture than you do. As long as science does
not contradict religion, religion will tolerate it. But watch out if they do not
or seem to not agree. Then you have all kinds of persecution, pseudo-science,
and hatred from the religious community. Take for example, that the Earth was
not the center of the Universe or that humans evolved from lower lifeforms.
Religious people are still waging war over that last one.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
[The current anthropomorphic global warming nonsense is
Merlin
> On 2008-02-10 19:40:10 +0000, "Jamffer" <jamf...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The_Sage" <The_S...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:rc6tq3t7j52ierivj...@4ax.com...
> >> How did the universe come into existence?
> >> God just felt like making it that way
> >> How did life appear from non-life?
> >> God just felt like making it that way
> >> How did consciousness develop?
> >> God just felt like making it that way
> >> How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
> >> God just felt like making it that way
> >> Why do planets orbit stars?
> >> God just felt like making it that way
>
> > It's so much easier to say (God did it) than to (think).
> > And it's so very, convenient.
>
> Except, of course, that religious people have been engaging with those
> questions every bit as much as non-religious people have. Holding the
> religious belief that God is ultimately responsible for all that is
> does not mean you don't ask questions and it certainly doesn't mean
> that you don't think. It just means the questions change:
a quiz!
> How did God make the universe come into existence?
one became many. as an ameba is one and becomes many.
the scientific how?
how did god impregnant the latent matter precreation and cause the
universes?
we were all there, and finally re-meet here
the big bang might be considered a myth about god breathing out that
begins the interaction called life.
> How did God make life from non-life?
when we are complete.
when we are all things in one.
when there is only one life
all in one united
there is no knowing.
there is no experience.
to know oneself one must become the many.
that separation is the creation of the life,
that splitting of the atom, the one adam the one god into many,
and that splitting gave the power to become creation.
as energy never disappears, it transforms in and out of matter
E=mc2 take this back to the beginning of creation.
that what ever energy suddenly appeared suddenly released
some how created or energized the matter of the universe
by combining with matter this energy became animated matter.
what that shape is is unknown to us
what that state of being is only imaginable to us.
for what is life? the perpetual soul or the momentary body?
will not this solar system return to rock and then dust as it was
created
when this energy drains from this area of the universe?
does not all life have this cycle.
> How did God arrange the laws of nature so that consciousness would develop?
it isn't like hitch hikers guide to the universe.
there are very few basic rules that have been improvised on over time.
the energy was set in motion and the laws of attraction and reaction
took over.
when god divided god learned with each new reaction or devision that
came from the initial act.
like when a rock is thrown in the lake and the patterns of ripples
form..
god watched the energy flow and animate the darkness
whether this energy create all matter is merlin's question.
consciousness?
how is consciousness separate from energy?
would not consciousness follow the same rules of the universe?
and then what part of the big bang was energy and what part was
consciousness separating as well?
> How has God arranged the laws of nature to allow evolution to take place?
name anything about nature that stays the same forever?
name a nation that lives forever.
name a sun system that last for ever.
when our universe has finished swelling and expanding -- will it
return like boomarang or a ball thrown straight up in the air?
it isn't the same clover, the same pine tree the same rose bush each
time you see one,
growth is change in shape and nature, adapting to the environment,
learning how to live and survive as a shrub or tree. we can see these
changes. some say chickens were once dinasaures.
have not humans become larger according to the abundance of food for
generations.
> How has God arranged the universe so that gravity works?
love? the laws of attraction?
where did gravity come from? have no idea.
in love,
merlin
Andrew
But do we? If the universe had a beginning then we do not have eternity
- time had a beginning.
> A trillion universe cycles are almost nothing, in eternity.
What do you mean by "eternity"?
Andrew
>> Reply to article by: Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
>> Date written: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:35:14 +0000
>> MsgID:<2008021020351475249-thecroft@macunlimitednet>
>
>>>> How did the universe come into existence?
>>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>>> How did life appear from non-life?
>>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>>> How did consciousness develop?
>>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>>> How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
>>>> God just felt like making it that way
>>>> Why do planets orbit stars?
>>>> God just felt like making it that way
>
>>> It's so much easier to say (God did it) than to (think).
>>> And it's so very, convenient.
>
>> Except, of course, that religious people have been engaging with those
>> questions every bit as much as non-religious people have.
>
> You are confusing religion with religious people. There are no religious texts
> that discuss logic or science. They do not encourage that kind of behavior.
There's no such thing as religion in the abstract apart from as
practised by religious people. It makes no sense at all to separate
these two ideas. And, perhaps more to the point, if you read the
writings of people like Newton you'll find it precisely his religious
belief in a Creator that inspired him to study Creation and to embrace
science.
>
>> Holding the
>> religious belief that God is ultimately responsible for all that is
>> does not mean you don't ask questions and it certainly doesn't mean
>> that you don't think. It just means the questions change:
>
>> How did God make the universe come into existence?
>> How did God make life from non-life?
>> How did God arrange the laws of nature so that consciousness would develop?
>> How has God arranged the laws of nature to allow evolution to take place?
>> How has God arranged the universe so that gravity works?
>
>> All these are every bit as stimulating as questions, and have
>> stimulated Christians to study science and to make significant
>> scientific discoveries for centuries.
>
> But history paints a much different picture than you do. As long as
> science does
> not contradict religion, religion will tolerate it. But watch out if
> they do not
> or seem to not agree. Then you have all kinds of persecution, pseudo-science,
> and hatred from the religious community. Take for example, that the Earth was
> not the center of the Universe or that humans evolved from lower lifeforms.
> Religious people are still waging war over that last one.
I've already dealt with this elsewhere. You are simply perpetuating a
myth. The opposition to the heliocentric cosmology came from both the
Church and the scientific establishment of the day. It was opposed not
simply because it appeared to contradict doctrine but because it did
not seem to make sense.
As to evolution, that too was opposed as much by the scientific
establishment of the time as by the religious - perhaps more so.
Your last sentence here is accurate and needs dealing with. I have said
that the 'opposition between science and religion' is a myth. I stand
by that and can - and have - back it up with fact. By perpetuating that
myth you play into the hands of bible literalists and fundamentalists -
you re-inforce their position. People like you have done more to
undermine intelligent thoughtful religious belief in the last decade or
so than any number of fundamentalists by, effectively, telling them
that fundamentalists are right - that you cannot accept both God and
evolution and that science is anti God. This is at best a myth, more
likely an atheist dogma, and at worst a lie.
Jamffer
> On 2008-02-10 22:39:40 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> > I think that if we knew the real scenario that it would give us a
headache.
> > If matter ever reverted back to when we would be remade, the amount of
time
> > for that to happen would be so long that there would almost not be
enough
> > zeros to write it down.
> > But never say never, when we have eternity.
>
> But do we? If the universe had a beginning then we do not have eternity
> - time had a beginning.
So, you were there, that's how you (know).
>
> > A trillion universe cycles are almost nothing, in eternity.
>
> What do you mean by "eternity"?
As in, if there is a God and He made all, then He doesn't make junk.
Whatever He made will last forever.
It's only getting our mind around the meaning of eternity that's an issue.
Only mortals need to have a beginning for things, as in beginning and end.
The "In the beginning..." is a real (hang up) for many people.
Because of the (ancient book).
Even a (God inspired) book was written down by imperfect humans to ancient
paper.
We shouldn't get too much into imperfections of human scribes.
The possibility of ancient scribes not allowing their self to think of
things as having been here all along, forever, could be an intentional
omission. Of course, I could be wrong.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<2008021019224275249-thecroft@macunlimitednet>
>>>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
>>>> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
>>>> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
>>>> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
>>>> something that doesn't exist in nature.
>>> No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
>> "Non-natural" is a non-existent term. You are making stuff up as you go along.
>> That is so dishonest. Look it up for yourself -- the Gods are defined as
>> supernatural beings and never, not once, defined as "non-natural" beings.
>Is the term hard to understand? Are you suggesting that it is
>illegitimate to communicate the idea that something is not something by
>prefixing "non" to the descriptor? The problem is your understanding of
>'supernatural' to imply 'divorced from' or 'unconnected to' nature.
>This is simply not the Christian understanding of the God that is
>responsible for, immanent throughout and intimately involved n, nature
Non-natural literally means not natural, ie -- manmade or artificial. This is in
stark constrast to supernatural, which according to Answers.com, is defined as,
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Clearly non-natural and supernatural are not related in meaning. Finally, there
is the definition of a God, which according to Answers.com is defined as,
"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by
a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature
or reality"
There are many more definitions of God from Oxford, Britannica, Websters, and
Columbia dictionaries, and all use the word supernatural in defining a God and
none of them use or imply the word "non-natural".
Can't you get anything right, Andrew? You have clearly demonstrated that you
have never looked up the definition for God or supernatural so if you want me or
anyone else here to take you seriously, then demonstrate a little seriousness
instead of obviously making things up out of thin air. It does nothing for your
cause when you blatently lie about it.
Ralph
Yeah, too bad Christians abdicated their scientific position.
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> On 2008-02-10 11:25:02 +0000, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com> said:
>
> >
> >
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-02-10 06:46:50 +0000, The_Sage <The_...@everywhere.com> said:
> >>
> >>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
> >>> all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
> >>> therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
> >>> Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
> >>> something that doesn't exist in nature.
> >>
> >> No - you're confusing "supernatural" with "non-natural"
> >>
> >>> Just the claim alone of the existence of
> >>> anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
> >>> require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming.
> >>> There is
> >>> no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
> >>> existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose.
> >>
> >> No it wouldn't. This is a classic category error. The Easter Bunny and
> >> Mother Goose are known to be, and accepted by all, as human
> >> fabrications. The same cannot be said for God.
> >
> > ROFL Of course it can, there's nothing to show otherwise
>
> Yes there is. NOBODY believes the Easter Bunny really exists. NOBODY
> believes Mother Goose really exists. EVERYBODY knows they are
> fabrications. Millions of people do believe that God exists, many of
> whom cite personal experience.
you mean THEY LIE ? I thought that was against one of the commandments?
so you in a god we never see or hear from because millions of others do the same.
every picture tells a story, so they say
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> The usage of the word
> >>> supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
> >>> logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
> >>> doesn't exist
> >>> anywhere except in your imagination.
> >>
> >> You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
> >> author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
> >
> > Groan
>
> Ah! The Bob Young approach to rational argument in all its glory
I groaned because you reject the fact your god is a supernatural
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
> >>> for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
> >>> detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the
> >>> complete lack of
> >>> evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no
> >>> millions
> >>> of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
> >>> would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
> >>> megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
> >>> God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
> >>> thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
> >>> ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
> >>> is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
> >>> presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
> >>> exist.
> >>
> >> The very existence of a universe that sprang into existence ex nihilo
> >> with exactly the right (but incredibly highly improbable) conditions
> >> for the begetting of intelligent life might be such evidence.
> >
> > ROFL
>
> Yep! That qualifies as rational argument too. In atheist terms, apparently.
Well it really was funny and not worth the time to deal with.
For the millionth time, The origin of the universe has yet to be determined, it may
never be, but you can rest assured it was not conjured up by your god, even though you
would dearly wish that to be the case.
If 'He' did it where was 'He' before' He' decided to create all those billions of dead
planets and stars ?
you hanvn't a clue of course
where is there ANY validated list ofthe world's scientists with alongside it their
religious beliefs?
Show me, if you cannot then you lie.
bob young
what a tiresome idiot you are. you know very well what evidence is, ANYTHING
that will show a fact.
> What theoretical or other
> construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
> allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
> its existence?
>
> > All there that we
> > have are unsubstantiated and uproven claims. Personal unproven claims are
> > merely evidence of
> > flawed reasoning - not objevtive verifiable evidence.
> >
> > Why would an omipotent creator of this vast complex Universe and humans be
> > so secretive and hidden?
>
> As I've suggested elsewhere in this post, you are surrounded by a
> universe that apparently just 'popped' into existence ex nihilo
Bullshit, nothing exists to show that.
> with
> exactly the highly unlikely properties required for the emergence of
> intelligent life. Doesn't seem very 'secret' or 'hidden' to me.
We are a specie and all species die out, time is not a factor here as there's
plenty of it to come.
......and when we die out the last god will dissapear with the last human and
then ' no more people to ask about the origins' - the universe will continue on
for billions and billions and billions of more years, endlessly, just as it did
before we arrived .
bob young
Jamffer wrote:
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008021016582616807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> > On 2008-02-10 15:42:24 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
> >
> > > There is NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence that ANY gods actually
> exist.
> >
> > So you say. But you have yet to suggest what would qualify, in your
> > view, as objective verifiable evidence. What theoretical or other
> > construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
> > allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
> > its existence?
>
> If I might suggest, (any) verifiable evidence that would remove our doubt,
> will do.
> I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
> Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
> Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
Finger on the pulse there - they use ancient scripts because outside of
mythology and magic, none of it can be verified.
Very convenient.
This is the reason there are no miracles today. When the post that the fools
come back with
'there are many miracles today'
But ask as we may, all we get are avoidance tactics and smoke screens - NEVER
verifiable data on present day miracle claims.
The other tactic is
I posted the proof before look it up i am not going to post it again.
then they wonder why there are atheists !
Groan.
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >
> > "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> > news:2008021016582616807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> >> On 2008-02-10 15:42:24 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
> >>
> >>> There is NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence that ANY gods actually
> > exist.
> >>
> >> So you say. But you have yet to suggest what would qualify, in your
> >> view, as objective verifiable evidence. What theoretical or other
> >> construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
> >> allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
> >> its existence?
> >
> > If I might suggest, (any) verifiable evidence that would remove our doubt,
> > will do.
>
> That still doesn't address the problem.
In other words 'you don't have any evidence'
> There is no such thing as
> "objective verifiable evidence" - for anything.
Bullshit
> There are facts.
what is the difference. yuo obvioulsy are no lawyer
>
> Whether a fact can be regarded as evidence depends on there being a
> theoretical or other mental construct against which it can be matched.
> I can show you any number of facts, but whether or not you will regard
> them as 'verifiable evidence that would remove (your) doubt' depends on
> what you think those facts are supposed to be evidence of.
Well have a try, But of course you will not. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING FACTUAL
TO OFFER
>
>
> > I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
> > Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
> > Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
>
> Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
> way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
> them.
Try me.
bob young
Jamffer wrote:
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008021020293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> > On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
> > > I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
> > > Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
> > > Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
> >
> > Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
> > way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
> > them.
>
> Possibly but they may have seen more (unexplained natural happenings) as
> miracles, also.
They were being fed lies and myths of the kind they wanted to hear. Pure and
simple
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> On 2008-02-10 21:28:40 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >
> > "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> > news:2008021020293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> >> On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
> >>> I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
> >>> Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
> >>> Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
> >>
> >> Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
> >> way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
> >> them.
> >
> > Possibly but they may have seen more (unexplained natural happenings) as
> > miracles, also.
>
> That's possible. Maybe, though, God feels that as we are no longer as
> ready to accept the concept of 'miracle' there is less to be gained by
> doing them.
what a total idiot you are. You even think you speak on behalf of a universe
creating god that never appears.
I suppose 'He' appears to you right?
Andrew
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-10 21:28:40 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2008021020293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>>> On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>>>>> I hear that even the apostles were skeptical at first.
>>>>> Certainly, one would not expect modern thinking people to be different.
>>>>> Why would an omnipotent God work miracles only in ancient times?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because people of that time would make sense of miracles in a
>>>> way that we moderns don't. Perhaps we wouldn't see the symbolism in
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Possibly but they may have seen more (unexplained natural happenings) as
>>> miracles, also.
>>
>> That's possible. Maybe, though, God feels that as we are no longer as
>> ready to accept the concept of 'miracle' there is less to be gained by
>> doing them.
>
> what a total idiot you are. You even think you speak on behalf of a universe
> creating god that never appears.
Did you spot the words "possible" and "maybe" there. Those are words
that people use to express tentative opinion. I appreciate that
atheists are capable only of dogmatic unquestioning certainty, but
wegod-btherers don't have your level of faith.
>
> I suppose 'He' appears to you right?
"Appears"? No.
Andrew
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-10 20:16:06 +0000, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2008021016582616807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>>> On 2008-02-10 15:42:24 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> There is NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence that ANY gods actually
>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> So you say. But you have yet to suggest what would qualify, in your
>>>> view, as objective verifiable evidence. What theoretical or other
>>>> construct do you have in your mind when you use the word "god" that
>>>> allows you to determine whether a fact is - or is not - evidence for
>>>> its existence?
>>>
>>> If I might suggest, (any) verifiable evidence that would remove our doubt,
>>> will do.
>>
>> That still doesn't address the problem.
>
> In other words 'you don't have any evidence'
>
>> There is no such thing as
>> "objective verifiable evidence" - for anything.
>
> Bullshit
>
>> There are facts.
>
> what is the difference. yuo obvioulsy are no lawyer
Do try engaging your brain. I know that's hard for someone as blinkered
and dogmatically certain as you. If you can't tell the difference
between the word 'fact' and 'evidence' you'd have to be a pushover for
every scam going.
>
>>
>> Whether a fact can be regarded as evidence depends on there being a
>> theoretical or other mental construct against which it can be matched.
>> I can show you any number of facts, but whether or not you will regard
>> them as 'verifiable evidence that would remove (your) doubt' depends on
>> what you think those facts are supposed to be evidence of.
>
> Well have a try, But of course you will not. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING FACTUAL
> TO OFFER
You're not reading Bob (No change there). There are gazillions of facts
out there - eveything from the boiling point of water to the capital of
Matabeleland. Unless I know what you understand by the word 'god' there
is no way I can know whether ANY fact would qualify as evidence for
god's existence.
Andrew
OK - the universe exists. Start with that.
Andrew
Of course I dont. our inability to understand some of the simplest
words in the English language really limits your ability to engage in
rational debate. A lie is a deliberate untruth - a statement made by a
person that he/she believes or knows to be untrue. Whether you like it
or not, people who claim personal experience of God believe they are
telling the truth.
> I thought that was against one of the commandments?
>
> so you in a god we never see or hear from because millions of others
> do the same.
I what?
>
> every picture tells a story, so they say
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The usage of the word
>>>>> supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
>>>>> logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that
>>>>> doesn't exist
>>>>> anywhere except in your imagination.
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who used the word "supernatural". For theists God is the
>>>> author of nature, and the laws of nature are his will.
>>>
>>> Groan
>>
>> Ah! The Bob Young approach to rational argument in all its glory
>
> I groaned because you reject the fact your god is a supernatural
I'm questioning the usage and understanding of the word 'supernatural'.
On what basis do you make that assertion? You've stated quite clearly
that it is based neither on fact nor scientific theory. What is left
but religious faith - oh, right. That's it exactly.
Take Newton, for example. He wrote extensively on the Bible. Google
"Newton" - it really isn't hard.
Andrew
No, we haven't. I teach science. I studied science. You listen too much
to a very vociferous minority.
merli...@gmail.com
> As in, if there is a God and He made all,
do you have to call 'it' god?
do yah? can this big smart cooperative intelligence just be the
garden grounds keeper?
> then He doesn't make junk.
She doesn't for sure.
> Whatever He made will last forever.
forever in is a term wrapped in time.
you are saying as long as there is time, this too shall last.
can you express forever outside of time?
for unless you can escape time there is no forever.
unless you can live outside of time, all things in time will fade.
and even god says the universe began, so there is a finite beginning.
and where there is a beginning there is an end.
our souls are not part of the time line,
our souls are using the time line.
our souls are using our bodies in this time line.
we can accomplishment much in this time line.
forever? do yah really want the same hairstyle for the rest of your
existence in the universe?
> It's only getting our mind around the meaning of eternity that's an issue.
yup, an eternity outside of our time line.
> Only mortals need to have a beginning for things,
all mortals suffer from a beginning and the threat of an end.
> as in beginning and end.
yes that is why jesus is said to be the omega beginning and end.
> The "In the beginning..." is a real (hang up) for many people.
> Because of the (ancient book).
not really, for most accept this idea of the beginning of the world.
most don't try to stretch back to the beginning of time. and when you
see god as a local earth god as does the bible, where is the universe
involved in our earthly ordeals? for there is no salvation mentioned
in jesus for the whole universe just what happens to the inhabitors of
earth.
and who knows, maybe just maybe the angels that visited earth in the
bible, where actually space beings checking us out? does not
abraham's odd meeting with god and the knife to kill his son in human
sacrifice as god was commanding sound a lot like an alien abduction
and anal probe?
> Even a (God inspired) book was written down by imperfect humans to ancient
> paper.
hard to prove, tho often claimed.
who were these god' inspired people?
no one in the bible actually wrote the books blamed on them.
> We shouldn't get too much into imperfections of human scribes.
ignore the religious political agenda of everyone from 2000 years ago?
LOL (laughing out loud)
> The possibility of ancient scribes not allowing their self to think of
> things as having been here all along, forever, could be an intentional
> omission. Of course, I could be wrong.
they wrote what they were told.
they were not writing novels or what they thought about god, they took
dictation.
a scribe does not have to think to copy text given from another
source.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
The_Sage
>Date written: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:40:00 -0600
>MsgID:<FoGdndjhj7TtOjLa...@bt.com>
>> Non-natural literally means not natural, ie -- manmade or artificial.
>It's a strange misconception we have that leads us to imagine that, say,
>skyscrapers and aircraft carriers are any less 'natural' than a spider's
>web or a bird's nest.
>Of course such human creations can be fairly described as 'man-made'
>(yes, made by Man, as opposed to made by men) or 'artificial' - but it's
>wrong to state that they're not natural.
It's a strange misconception we have that leads us to imagine that everything
artificial is natural.
>> This is in stark constrast to supernatural, which according to
>> Answers.com, is defined as,
>> 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
>> 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural
>> forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity.
>> 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power;
>> miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
>> Clearly non-natural and supernatural are not related in meaning.
>'Non-natural' and 'supernatural' are related in one crucial way: they
>both define things that don't exist.
Well let's look it up and see if you are correct...
Natural
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned:
natural immunity; a natural reflex
(http://www.answers.com/natural&r=67)
That doesn't help too much but it does lead us in a certain direction because
whateer natural is, it must be nature related and not artificial. So let's look
those words up...
Nature
1. The material world and its phenomena
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of
the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by
civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and
went back to nature (http://www.answers.com/topic/nature)
Well that doesn't help much but remember, natural also is something that is not
artificial so...
Artificial
1. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
2. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated
forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and
minorities; an artificial economic boom.
(http://www.answers.com/artificial&r=67)
Now it is beggining to make sense. If something is natural, that means it is
made by non-human means. So all we need now to make a comparison between natural
and supernatural, is to look up the definition for supernatural...
Supernatural
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural
forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Supernatural definitely refers to something that does not exist in the real
world, but artificial things do exist.
>By definition, anything that does exist (even if it should prove to be
>gods, demons, ghosts, monsters or aliens) is natural - therefore there is
>nothing in the universe that is either supernatural or non-natural.
You stand corrected.
>> Finally, there is the definition of a God, which according to
>> Answers.com is defined as,
>> "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
>> worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control
>> some part of nature or reality"
>> There are many more definitions of God from Oxford, Britannica,
>> Websters, and Columbia dictionaries, and all use the word supernatural
>> in defining a God and none of them use or imply the word
>> "non-natural".
>If gods do not exist, then there is no reason we could *not* call them
>supernatural - but in that case there are many other terms that would be
>clearer in meaning. If they do exist, then these definitions
>notwithstanding, they cannot be called supernatural.
But they are called supernatural because they fit the definition of
supernatural, ie -- it violates natural laws and forces and it is miraculous.
Philosophlically you can argue the point but you cannot argue the point
technically.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<2008021023494275249-thecroft@macunlimitednet>
>>>> It's so much easier to say (God did it) than to (think).
>>>> And it's so very, convenient.
>>> Except, of course, that religious people have been engaging with those
>>> questions every bit as much as non-religious people have.
>> You are confusing religion with religious people. There are no religious texts
>> that discuss logic or science. They do not encourage that kind of behavior.
>There's no such thing as religion in the abstract apart from as
>practised by religious people. It makes no sense at all to separate
>these two ideas.
It makes perfect sense if you look those words up in a dictionary. A person can
be religious but a religion is not a person. I am talking about a religion and
you are talking about a person within that religion. There are exceptions to the
rule (ie -- religious people who do not adhere to every principle within their
religion) but the rule is that the religion and the vast majority of people
within it, do not teach or practice logical thinking, in fact they discourage it
more often than not.
>And, perhaps more to the point, if you read the
>writings of people like Newton you'll find it precisely his religious
>belief in a Creator that inspired him to study Creation and to embrace
>science.
There are three things wrong with that claim:
1) Newton is an exception, not the rule
2) The degree of Newton's religious conviction is doubtful, due to the
requirement by all scientists to include religious sermons in their
scientific work or face the Inquisition
3) Newton was inspired by his religion to study science, but Newton's religion
neither adds nor subtracts anything from his scientific discoveries and
observations. That makes his religious text, irrelevant.
The only thing that really has any meaning to me is #3, since religion does not
teach us methodology or is a textbook on how to conduct objective observation.
>>> Holding the
>>> religious belief that God is ultimately responsible for all that is
>>> does not mean you don't ask questions and it certainly doesn't mean
>>> that you don't think. It just means the questions change:
>>> How did God make the universe come into existence?
>>> How did God make life from non-life?
>>> How did God arrange the laws of nature so that consciousness would develop?
>>> How has God arranged the laws of nature to allow evolution to take place?
>>> How has God arranged the universe so that gravity works?
>>> All these are every bit as stimulating as questions, and have
>>> stimulated Christians to study science and to make significant
>>> scientific discoveries for centuries.
>> But history paints a much different picture than you do. As long as science does
>> not contradict religion, religion will tolerate it. But watch out if they do not
>> or seem to not agree. Then you have all kinds of persecution, pseudo-science,
>> and hatred from the religious community. Take for example, that the Earth was
>> not the center of the Universe or that humans evolved from lower lifeforms.
>> Religious people are still waging war over that last one.
>I've already dealt with this elsewhere. You are simply perpetuating a
>myth.
So you say without a shred of evidence. You are simply trying to suppress the
truth by passing it off as an alleged myth.
>The opposition to the heliocentric cosmology came from both the
>Church and the scientific establishment of the day. It was opposed not
>simply because it appeared to contradict doctrine but because it did
>not seem to make sense.
The scientific establishment was controlled by the Church but even then the
scientific establisment did not persecute people or conduct hearings in which
people were imprisoned for their teachings. Only religion did that.
>As to evolution, that too was opposed as much by the scientific
>establishment of the time as by the religious - perhaps more so.
Science does not oppose anything. Science dismisses any claim given in the
vacuum of evidence. As soon as evidence for the claim is presented, science
accepts the claim. Opposing implies taking action to suppress the claim,
something which science the vast majority of time does not do, and something
which religion, the vast majority of time, does.
>Your last sentence here is accurate and needs dealing with. I have said
>that the 'opposition between science and religion' is a myth. I stand
>by that and can - and have - back it up with fact. By perpetuating that
>myth you play into the hands of bible literalists and fundamentalists -
>you re-inforce their position. People like you have done more to
>undermine intelligent thoughtful religious belief in the last decade or
>so than any number of fundamentalists by, effectively, telling them
>that fundamentalists are right - that you cannot accept both God and
>evolution and that science is anti God. This is at best a myth, more
>likely an atheist dogma, and at worst a lie.
Nonsense.
Jamffer
"Midwinter" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8LKdnSCRVMr...@bt.com...
> The_Sage <The_...@everywhere.com> said :
>
> > It's a strange misconception we have that leads us to imagine that
> > everything artificial is natural.
>
> are natural - what else would you call it? Do you call a beaver dam or a
> bird's nest unnatural purely because it didn't grow there fully formed?
>
>
> [Snippage of pedantic dictionary quibbling]
>
>
> > You stand corrected.
>
> Nature is natural. We are part of nature. Therefore, ourselves, and
> everything we create, is natural. Everything that exists as part of
nature
> is natural - and everything that exists is part of nature.
Does that include our vivid imagination, myth conceptions and religious
systems for controlling humans?
Supernatural becomes natural when proven with solid evidence. The occult
becomes (science) when proof is established.
>
>
> > But they are called supernatural because they fit the definition of
> > supernatural, ie -- it violates natural laws and forces and it is
> > miraculous.
>
> If it violates the laws of nature then there are three possibilities:
> either our understanding of the laws of nature is wrong (as it has been
> before and no doubt will be again - otherwise there'd be no need for any
> more scientific research); or the phenomenon being postuled is being
> wrongly observed or described; or the phenomenon being postuled does not
> exist.
>
> Whichever option you choose there are two outcomes: the phenomenon exist,
> and thus is natural, or it is not natural and thus does not exist. This
> would apply equally to ghosts, psychic powers, gods, or anything else.
Ralph
I'm so glad you teach science, Andrew, we need good science teachers. Wasn't
"Dr. Dino" also a teacher of science?
The_Sage
>MsgID:<8LKdnSCRVMr...@bt.com>
>> It's a strange misconception we have that leads us to imagine that
>> everything artificial is natural.
>Well of course it is. The materials we make things from are natural, we
>are natural - what else would you call it? Do you call a beaver dam or a
>bird's nest unnatural purely because it didn't grow there fully formed?
This is a serious discussion and obviously you are not being serious. We have
all seen the official meaning of natural and artificial, and they do not match
your imaginary redefinition of the words. Get a clue and get a dictionary.
Andrew
Not familiar with "Dr Dino". Possibly the wrong part of the world for me.
Merlin
alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christianity
dear The_Sage <The_S...@everywhere.com> wrote:
> This is a serious discussion
then parse your words. your posts are way too long and not
interesting enough to plow through at this time. unless you can
steamline your thoughts are break them down or outline them, your
genious will never be appreciated.
> and obviously you are not being serious.
this is a conversation pit.
stop telling people how to address you madame/sir/general.
> We have
> all seen the official meaning of natural and artificial,
so get on with it. stay on your track, don't get
> and they do not match
> your imaginary redefinition of the words.
your long phrases and big words aren't any more interesting than
someone else's imagination. bring us a long don't act so dang
superior.
> Get a clue and get a dictionary.
suppy your own definitions.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
===================================
The_Sage
>Date written: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:08:58 -0800 (PST)
>MsgID:<1e24d2fc-815a-43d7...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
>> This is a serious discussion
>then parse your words.
Done. Its your turn now, idiot.
merli...@gmail.com
> >Reply to article by: Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>
> >Date written: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:08:58 -0800 (PST)
> >> This is a serious discussion
> >then parse your words.
>
> Done. Its your turn now, idiot.
>
> The Sage
Ralph
"Dr." Kent Hovind. Worthless lying creationist now doing time for income tax
evasion.
Andrew
Best place for him.
The_Sage
>Date written: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:03:26 -0800 (PST)
>MsgID:<bba5328e-399e-4c76...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
>> >> This is a serious discussion then parse your words.
>> Done. Its your turn now, idiot.
>done what?
So you still have no clue what is be discussed? That proves you are an idiot. I
rest my case.
Merlin
> >Reply to article by: merlina...@gmail.com
> >Date written: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:03:26 -0800 (PST)
> >> >> This is a serious discussion then parse your words.
> >> Done. Its your turn now, idiot.
> >done what?
>
> So you still have no clue what is be discussed? That proves you are an idiot. I
> rest my case.
criminalizing people for jesus is an art. it happens on christnet
constantly.
everyone is under arrest, this guys got a case.
that guys got a case, it all sounds so suedo legal doesn't it?
it all sounds so sorta something important?
so many americans have been criminalized that it can change the vote
for president.
and what is the racial makeup of these large groups of criminals?
who is being criminalized so they can't vote in america?
and so it continues.
The_Sage
all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming. There is
no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that doesn't exist
anywhere except in your imagination.
There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the complete lack of
evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no millions
of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
exist.
The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you talk to.
Ask ten different people what the existential nature of any one God is and you
will get ten different answers. You have nothing logically solid to stand on
when discussing the existential nature of a God because the nature of a God is
in constant flux. It is a slippery little thing that you will never be able to
quite put your finger on. Gods have always been unknowable and unobservable.
People can only tell you storytales of what they hope a God is like. But if you
want evidence and logic from them about the actual provable nature of a God,
forget it, that doesn't exist either.
In the last 100 years, science has given us light, electricity, automobiles,
cellphones, computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning,
vaccines...in other words, practically a whole new civilation. And what has
believing in God done for civilization in the last 10,000 years? Nothing except
Holy Wars and Jihads. Science has caused religion to have lots of egg on its
face in the last 100 years, so what is religions answer to science? Let me tell
you what that answer is and always has been...
How did the universe come into existence?
God just felt like making it that way
How did life appear from non-life?
God just felt like making it that way
How did consciousness develop?
God just felt like making it that way
How did man get 99% of a chimps genes?
God just felt like making it that way
Why do planets orbit stars?
God just felt like making it that way
.
.
.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Religion tells us nothing about the
real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to fight in
Wars or Crusades, to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
The Sage
monkfish
You got it backward.
Atheists are the ones that insist that
they already know all about reality.
That's pure fantasy.
We don't even know whether time exists or not.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
Christians have enough humilty to know better.
We as limited human beings might not be able
to know all about reality in our lifetime.
That means we promoted science to its fullest extent
without limiting it with blind faith of hubris.
Eliminating the atheist cult of hatred would
definitely eliminate one source of conflict here.
It would stop atheist cult members
posting hateful messages in Christian newsgroups.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there
consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by
their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to
them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other
than your own newsgroup.
Jamffer
> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
A belief requires nothing except for a person to (decide) to accept
something as true.
A belief requires no evidence at all. If I decide to believe in invisible
extraterrestrials it would be difficult for anyone to prove beyond all doubt
that they didn't exist.
Jamffer
Antares 531
wrote:
You seem to have limited your assessment of this to one small facet of
the whole "belief" scenario. There is more to it than you've
indicated.
The definition one uses for "belief" and how one applies it depends
upon what level of "belief" one is talking about. A "casual belief"
may require little or no evidence at all, but most "beliefs" are based
upon a tangible amount of evidence that remains insufficient to
constitute a "proof." If a proof can be presented, "belief" then
becomes "knowledge."
"Belief" can range all the way from the extreme negative to the
extreme positive. Knowledge is the definition for those mind-sets that
are beyond the extremes of belief.
I "believe" I'll still be alive tomorrow. I'm in robust health and
under no threats that I'm aware of. (Extreme positive belief)
I "do not believe" I will live to the ripe old age of 150. (Extreme
negative belief)
I "believe" the sun will shine again, once the clouds have cleared
away. (Extreme positive belief)
I "believe" we may get some rain tonight...50-50 chance. (Medium
belief, or casual belief)
I "believe" the 11 dimensions (10 spatial and one temporal) multiverse
of String Theory and Membrane Theory and the 7 levels of Heaven that
the Bible mentions are the same thing. From our perspective these
other dimensions are rolled up like a scroll to less than a Planck
Length. (Moderately positive belief)
I "believe" there is life on other planets somewhere out in the
multiverse. If this planet we occupy was able to produce life I see no
reason to "believe" that other planets could not have done the same
thing. (Strong positive belief)
The_Sage
>Date written: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:22:26 -0400
>MsgID:<X4Kdne9xIu_9JoHVnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@localnet>
>> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>A belief requires nothing except for a person to (decide) to accept
>something as true.
But a belief in God still requires other beliefs in order to believe in God.
>A belief requires no evidence at all. If I decide to believe in invisible
>extraterrestrials it would be difficult for anyone to prove beyond all doubt
>that they didn't exist.
Then the problem is that people need to learn to doubt, instead of blindly
accepting anything that tickles their ears.
Jamffer
Believing in the (concept of the God system) or believing in the existence
of a supreme being are not quite the same thing. It's possible that most
people will never (in mortal life) ever meet a God, other than ourselves.
Bill M
just like Santa, The Wizard of Oz, and Alice in Wonderland!
"The_Sage" <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:mqcn14d2op18d2e98...@4ax.com...
The_Sage
>MsgID:<8dadnd1ZlNWkhIDVnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@localnet>
>> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>Believing in the (concept of the God system) or believing in the existence
>of a supreme being are not quite the same thing.
The point still being that believing in a supreme being still requires that you
first believe in something known to not exist, ie -- the supernatural, since
that is the only way a supreme being can exist. Likewise, the God system first
requires a belief in a God, which in turn requires a belief in the supernatural,
which is known not to exist...
>It's possible that most
>people will never (in mortal life) ever meet a God, other than ourselves.
By any legitimate definition of God, we are not God.
Jamffer
> >Reply to article by: "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com>
> >Date written: Sat, 3 May 2008 22:02:37 -0400
> >MsgID:<8dadnd1ZlNWkhIDVnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@localnet>
>
> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>
> >Believing in the (concept of the God system) or believing in the
existence
> >of a supreme being are not quite the same thing.
>
> The point still being that believing in a supreme being still requires
that you
> first believe in something known to not exist, ie -- the supernatural,
since
> that is the only way a supreme being can exist. Likewise, the God system
first
> requires a belief in a God, which in turn requires a belief in the
supernatural,
> which is known not to exist...
>
> >It's possible that most
> >people will never (in mortal life) ever meet a God, other than ourselves.
>
> By any legitimate definition of God, we are not God.
Neither of us can provide evidence to prove or disprove that.
Jamffer
Merlin
> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
that is all it is is belief, experience can be found. yet most
religions are about faith without signs.
> >Believing in the (concept of the God system) or believing in the existence
> >of a supreme being are not quite the same thing.
one comes before the other. tho someone may learn about the system
before they meet god.
kinda like start working in the mail room before meeting the president
of the company.
> The point still being that believing in a supreme being
is believing and may not be knowing.
> still requires that you
> first believe in something known to not exist, ie --
unless you bipass the belief part and find god.
> the supernatural, since
> that is the only way a supreme being can exist.
not really, a supreme being could hide in a blade of grass.
> Likewise, the God system first
> requires a belief in a God,
not really, cause you can know the man at the gate to the castle
before you meet the king inside.
> which in turn requires a belief in the supernatural,
supernatural is nature unknown to you.
god is a nature unknown to you also.
that does not mean either are made up,
just unknown by you.
> which is known not to exist...
that is what you believe until you know differently.
that is the safe best place to be as a modern man.
accepting the unknown and still not knowing they exist.
> >It's possible that most
> >people will never (in mortal life) ever meet a God, other than ourselves.
that is very true, that may be the most they can comprehend.
why would god force god unto anyone?
why would god not wait for each of us to get to the ripe stage before
harvest?
so some of us may still be ripening and not aware of the glory that is
available to full blown flowers.
>
> By any legitimate definition of God, we are not God.
by any definition of god, there is nothing that is not god.
find a way to access gawd. read the holy books of differing
religions.
they all seem to say we can find god with our love.
try to love and see what you find.
try to love and see what comes to you?
for with love we begin a journey that ends in understanding.
for only love can unlock us enough to open something inside of us,
to see who we really are.
it is like the whole world is distracted and takes that distraction as
proof there is nothing deeper to life.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<5_6dnats54bzgL_VnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@localnet>
>> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>>>Believing in the (concept of the God system) or believing in the existence
>>>of a supreme being are not quite the same thing.
>>The point still being that believing in a supreme being still requires that you
>> first believe in something known to not exist, ie -- the supernatural, since
>> that is the only way a supreme being can exist. Likewise, the God system first
>> requires a belief in a God, which in turn requires a belief in the supernatural,
>> which is known not to exist...
>> >It's possible that most
>> >people will never (in mortal life) ever meet a God, other than ourselves.
>> By any legitimate definition of God, we are not God.
>Neither of us can provide evidence to prove or disprove that.
Wrong. You can't prove that but I can. It is so easy. For example, logic is not
one of your strong points. You are terrible at simple logic. God, on the other
hand, is omniscience, therefore God, by definition, has perfect logic. God's
logic is perfect -- your logic sucks. Viola! I have proved you are not God.
The_Sage
>Date written: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
>MsgID:<8d8e2b56-426e-40ec...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
>> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>that is all it is is belief
My point exactly! Nothing more needs to be said other then I have no need to
believe in anything because I know without having to believe.
Merlin
> >> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
> >that is all it is is belief
>
> My point exactly! Nothing more needs to be said other then I have no need to
> believe in anything because I know without having to believe.
you started this........ LOL.
yet there is experience with god. we can have a real and abiding
relationship with god.
and seeing the 'sign's and using the myth to remember how we did it
before, is what we call the collective religious experience, and
labeled spiritual in the individual.
don't put up with belief, find it for youself.
in love with the living loving gay jesus,
merlin
Antares 531
wrote:
>A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God. What is common to
>all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
>therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
>Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
>something that doesn't exist in nature. Just the claim alone of the existence of
>anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
>require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming. There is
>no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
>existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose. The usage of the word
>supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
>logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that doesn't exist
>anywhere except in your imagination.
>
Super String and Membrane Theories suggest the existence of other
universes associated with the multiverse that we are a part of. These
other universes are congruent with the Biblical levels of Heaven.
>
>There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
>for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
>detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the complete lack of
>evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no millions
>of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
>would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
>megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
>God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
>thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
>ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
>is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
>presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
>exist.
>
There is no proof that life exists on any other planets within this
universe or within the multiverse, but my "faith" leads me to
"believe" that there are many life bearing planets. If life could
occur here on this insignificant planet why could it not occur on many
other planets. We can't "prove" it so I guess we have to shut the door
on this and "believe" that it can't be so.
A mature young healthy human's brain is comprised of about 100 billion
neurons, and each neuron has from 1,000 to 10,000 synapses with other
neurons. With this organic structure we are able to have a temporal
awareness of our selves and environment. We are able to extrapolate
into the future to a limited extent, and we are able to remember the
past to a fairly reliable extent.
Something such as quantum entanglements that function at the Planck
level, doing the same thing that our brain's synapses do, could
provide means for a "spiritual" form of cognizance that extends
throughout the universe/multiverse?
>.
>.
>Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Religion tells us nothing about the
>real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
>questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
>
>Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
>reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to fight in
>Wars or Crusades, to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
>people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
>dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
>
Don't miss the boat, all together. Give this some deeper thinking and
see if you CAN find significant congruence between science and the
Word of God.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<c555370b-4853-47a5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
>> >> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>> >that is all it is is belief
>> My point exactly! Nothing more needs to be said other then I have no need to
>> believe in anything because I know without having to believe.
>you started this........ LOL.
>yet there is experience with god.
Just because you say so?....LOL
Merlin
> >Reply to article by: Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>
> >Date written: Thu, 8 May 2008 08:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >> >> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
> >> >that is all it is is belief
> >> My point exactly! Nothing more needs to be said other then I have no need to
> >> believe in anything because I know without having to believe.
> >you started this........ LOL.
> >yet there is experience with god.
>
> Just because you say so?....LOL
since there is polarity in this world,
which side are you on is the game right?
whose mandala you riding?
Athena
(in message <9e-dnR2JYJ-NfL7V...@ptd.net>):
> You really should work on your wit.
LOL - That from some who is really witless
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 9 May 2008 05:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
>MsgID:<63afc3c7-d3de-4902...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>> >> >> >> >> A belief in a God requires more than just a belief in a God.
>> >> >that is all it is is belief
>> >> My point exactly! Nothing more needs to be said other then I have no need to
>> >> believe in anything because I know without having to believe.
>> >you started this........ LOL.
>> >yet there is experience with god.
>> Just because you say so?....LOL
>since there is polarity in this world,
>which side are you on is the game right?
>whose mandala you riding?
Since the world is not 100% polarized, I am riding on the side of facts. Haven't
you ever heard of non-polar solvents for example? Time for you to get a clue,
Merlin.
Sword of the Spirit
Sword of the Spirit
The_Sage
all the accepted definitions of a God is that a God is a supernatural being,
therefore it requires you to first believe that the supernatural exists.
Supernatural means "beyond natural" which in itself tells us that it describes
something that doesn't exist in nature. Just the claim alone of the existence of
anything supernatural would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, and no such proof has been forthcoming. There is
no such thing as the supernatural. That would be exactly like believing in the
existence of the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose. The usage of the word
supernatural alone is a red flag to anyone with the least amount of common
logical sense, that they know you are talking about something that doesn't exist
anywhere except in your imagination.
There is no proof for the claim that any God exists, a blind faith assertion
for which believers are famous for. If someone claimed that they successfully
detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night, the complete lack of
evidence (ie -- no crater, no residual radiation, no blinding flash, no millions
of casualties, and no massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape)
would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10
megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. Likewise, if someone claimed that
God is everywhere, yet God is nowhere to be found outside of their poorly
thought out imagination, the logically proper thing to do is to doubt their
ludicrous claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there
is absolutely no evidence -- extraordinary or otherwise -- that has ever been
presented in favor of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural God or Gods
exist.
The nature of these imaginary Gods is not fixed, but depends on who you talk to.
.
.
.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Religion tells us nothing about the
real world. It's all "just because". Religion gives us answers that cannot be
questioned, whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered.
Clearly to say Gods don't exist will eliminate one source of conflict between
reality and fantasy, to say Gods don't exist will be one less reason to fight in
Wars or Crusades, to say Gods don't exist will be a good excuse for religious
people to start learning to use their minds instead of being passively deaf,
dumb, and blinded to reason by faith.
The Sage
Bill M
There are hundreds of different god/religious beliefs and NONE of these gods
confirms which are real or which are fakes.
NO REAL god would permit his creations to be so misled and confused
about his existence and demands.
It is obvious that all gods are purely the creations of human imaginations.
Religion is things hoped for but not yet seen or proven. Science is things
seen and proven but not necessarily hoped for.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Gods, Heavens, Sin,
Hells, Devils or Angels exist except in the imaginations of religionists.
These beliefs are held resolutely
to help people deal with their panic fear of death and what comes after.
When there is NO objective verifiable evidence for something's existence it
is logical to assume it does no exist. The LACK of evidence is not evidence
of something's existence.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created imaginary gods! (thousands of them!)
"The_Sage" <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:7m9i74h2i73arqkc8...@4ax.com...
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> When there is NO objective verifiable evidence for something's existence it
> is logical to assume it does no exist.
Wrong, You have no information one way or the other.
The_Sage
>Date written: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:04:38 +0000 (UTC)
>MsgID:<g5e8n6$o3m$1...@reader1.panix.com>
>> When there is NO objective verifiable evidence for something's existence it
>> is logical to assume it does no exist.
>Wrong, You have no information one way or the other.
You are only speaking for yourself.
modematic
> >Reply to article by: EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com
> >Date written: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:04:38 +0000 (UTC)
> >> When there is NO objective verifiable evidence for something's existence it
> >> is logical to assume it does no exist.
> >Wrong, You have no information one way or the other.
>
> You are only speaking for yourself.
>
> The Sage
>
>
> [The current anthropomorphic global warming nonsense is
> based on] "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar
> to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week
> from now" -- Dr. Richard Lindzen
> =============================================================
Lack of evidence of x
is not _logical_ proof of not-x.
Lack of inductive evidence of x
over the long haul where evidence
should have been found is
definitely evidence of not-x.
There has been a very long haul.
Given the xtian description of x,
there should have been evidence
of x.
No evidence has been found for x.
________________
: There is evidence of not-x.
Bill M
people. They need for gods to exist to provide themselves with a mental
anesthesia to deal with the finality of death.
"The_Sage" <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:7m9i74h2i73arqkc8...@4ax.com...
Andrew
> Of course gods exist. They exist in the 'imaginations' of millions of
> people. They need for gods to exist to provide themselves with a mental
> anesthesia to deal with the finality of death.
Would you two like to get a room together?
Jamffer
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008071623293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> On 2008-07-16 17:16:00 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
> > Of course gods exist. They exist in the 'imaginations' of millions of
> > people. They need for gods to exist to provide themselves with a mental
> > anesthesia to deal with the finality of death.
>
> Would you two like to get a room together?
Is that the best rebuttal you have, Andrew?
Andrew
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008071623293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2008-07-16 17:16:00 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
>>
>>> Of course gods exist. They exist in the 'imaginations' of millions of
>>> people. They need for gods to exist to provide themselves with a mental
>>> anesthesia to deal with the finality of death.
>>
>> Would you two like to get a room together?
>
> Is that the best rebuttal you have, Andrew?
Well what is there to actually get hold of here? One guy plays with
words a little bit, but clearly has no grasp of logic or reason.
Another says "Me too!" I'm not God - I can't make a silk purse from a
sow's ear.
Jamffer
> On 2008-07-17 01:01:08 +0100, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >
> > "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> > news:2008071623293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> >> On 2008-07-16 17:16:00 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
> >>
> >>> Of course gods exist. They exist in the 'imaginations' of millions of
> >>> people. They need for gods to exist to provide themselves with a
mental
> >>> anesthesia to deal with the finality of death.
> >>
> >> Would you two like to get a room together?
> >
> > Is that the best rebuttal you have, Andrew?
>
> Well what is there to actually get hold of here? One guy plays with
> words a little bit, but clearly has no grasp of logic or reason.
> Another says "Me too!" I'm not God - I can't make a silk purse from a
> sow's ear.
The point about God existing in the minds of millions, while not fitting the
standard vision of a God, might that be in retrospect a God working with
peoples hands in the world? If God was only a concept, wouldn't it become
real, if the work of God was done in the end?
Andrew
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008071701181516807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2008-07-17 01:01:08 +0100, "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2008071623293416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>>> On 2008-07-16 17:16:00 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course gods exist. They exist in the 'imaginations' of millions of
>>>>> people. They need for gods to exist to provide themselves with a
> mental
>>>>> anesthesia to deal with the finality of death.
>>>>
>>>> Would you two like to get a room together?
>>>
>>> Is that the best rebuttal you have, Andrew?
>>
>> Well what is there to actually get hold of here? One guy plays with
>> words a little bit, but clearly has no grasp of logic or reason.
>> Another says "Me too!" I'm not God - I can't make a silk purse from a
>> sow's ear.
>
> The point about God existing in the minds of millions, while not fitting the
> standard vision of a God, might that be in retrospect a God working with
> peoples hands in the world? If God was only a concept, wouldn't it become
> real, if the work of God was done in the end?
No - I don't think that follows at all. A thing is either real or it is not.
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
==>In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
==>> When there is NO objective verifiable evidence for something's existence it
==>> is logical to assume it does no exist.
==>Wrong, You have no information one way or the other.
Of course he does.
If Bill has even a modicum of education in
history, he has the information he presented,
i.e.: that there is NO objective verifiable evidence
for the existence of any gods or anything
supernatural.
In all of human history there has never been such
verifiable evidence, which is why all believers
ultimately concede that their belief is based only on
faith (mainly in the veracity of an ancient book of
fairy tales of unknown authorship).
Now, faith may be enough reason for some folks
to believe in the implausible, but people with actual
working brains are not willing to accept outlandish
assertions without credible evidence.
(This is what makes them intelligent, as opposed to
religious people who are, more often than not, dumb
as shit.)
The absence of evidence -- particularly when that
absence persists over milennia -- is undisputably
evidence of absence.
--
"A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the
capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is
actually ill." -H. L. Mencken
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Andrew
No - that's wholly illogical. Even if I accept the premise that there
is an absence of evidence (and I don't), then an absence of evidence is
just that - an absence of fact on which to base any conclusions. To
illustrate this, do you accept that it is a reasonable rephrasing of
your last paragraph to say "We have evidence that things for which
there is no evidence do not exist"?
modematic
> On 2008-07-14 15:39:25 +0100, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@yahoo.ca> said:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:04:38 +0000 (UTC), EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com
Lack of evidence does not imply evidence of absence in logic.
However, the poster was clearly talking about induction, not
the predicate calculus.
Lack of evidence, when evidence should have been found,
over a long period, is evidence of absence.
I now gird my grid for your usual "God has reason to
hide..." speech.
Jamffer
I pick (not) until real evidence is presented.
Andrew
The problem, though, is in what you mean by "evidence". There is no
such thing as evidence. There are facts. Whether any of these facts
qualify as 'evidence' for a proposition depends on there being a clear
and agreed definition of what that proposition is and how it would be
manifest in the real world. In short, you need an theory and
universally accepted test for that theory.
modematic
> > I pick (not) until real evidence is presented.
>
> The problem, though, is in what you mean by "evidence". There is no
> such thing as evidence. There are facts. Whether any of these facts
> qualify as 'evidence' for a proposition depends on there being a clear
> and agreed definition of what that proposition is and how it would be
> manifest in the real world. In short, you need an theory and
> universally accepted test for that theory.
What a complete crock; evidence is not merely some courtroom
term that depends on language. Only legal evidence requires
tight rules governing how facts are presented.
This is such a typical Andrew-like language game.
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
==>> ==>Wrong, You have no information one way or the other.
IG:
==>> Of course he does.
==>>
==>> If Bill has even a modicum of education in
==>> history, he has the information he presented,
==>> i.e.: that there is NO objective verifiable evidence
==>> for the existence of any gods or anything
==>> supernatural.
==>>
==>> In all of human history there has never been such
==>> verifiable evidence, which is why all believers
==>> ultimately concede that their belief is based only on
==>> faith (mainly in the veracity of an ancient book of
==>> fairy tales of unknown authorship).
==>>
==>> Now, faith may be enough reason for some folks
==>> to believe in the implausible, but people with actual
==>> working brains are not willing to accept outlandish
==>> assertions without credible evidence.
==>>
==>> (This is what makes them intelligent, as opposed to
==>> religious people who are, more often than not, dumb
==>> as shit.)
==>>
==>> The absence of evidence -- particularly when that
==>> absence persists over milennia -- is undisputably
==>> evidence of absence.
==>No - that's wholly illogical.
Correction -- it is eminently logical.
==>Even if I accept the premise that there
==>is an absence of evidence (and I don't), then an absence of evidence is
==>just that - an absence of fact on which to base any conclusions.
Absolutely mistaken and illogical as hell.
The fact that humans have never, in their entire
history, encountered evidence that there ever lived
a talking tree is to most sane people perfectly
good reason to conclude that such a creature has
never existed. Anyone who would claim that there
is nothing whatsoever upon which to base a
conclusion about the existence of talking trees
would be seen for what he was -- an argumentative
sophist and a boring twit.
==>To illustrate this, do you accept that it is a reasonable rephrasing of
==>your last paragraph to say "We have evidence that things for which
==>there is no evidence do not exist"?
Nice try. Of course not.
That's just a transparent rejigging of that
desperately stupid and dishonest challenge victims
of religion are always hurling at agnostics and
atheists -- "Can you prove there's no God? Well,
can you? Can you?"
Even the Romans knew that tactic was bullshit, which
gave rise to the expression, "Ei incumbit probatio qui
dicit, non qui negat." ("The onus of proof lies on the
man who affirms, not on the man who denies.")
So, no, there is no and there can be no "evidence that
things for which there is no evidence do not exist."
But the absolute fact that there has never been
a shred more evidence of the existence of any gods
than of talking trees will lead most intelligent,
logical humans to arrive at the conclusion that both
are figments of the imagination only and not to be
taken seriously.
--
You want gospel? Here's gospel: There are no gods, ghosts, goblins
or anything supernatural whatsoever. Death comes to every living
thing and is forever. There's no coming back from it and never was,
and there's no afterlife. Life is interesting but meaningless, and
the universe is utterly indifferent to us. THAT's gospel you can take
to the bank. -Ivan Gowch
Andrew
But your analogy is entirely false. We have everyday experience of
trees. They don't talk. We know how they are constructed and know that
they do not contain parts or structures that allow them to talk. None
of this applies to God.
>
> ==>To illustrate this, do you accept that it is a reasonable rephrasing of
> ==>your last paragraph to say "We have evidence that things for which
> ==>there is no evidence do not exist"?
>
> Nice try. Of course not.
>
> That's just a transparent rejigging of that
> desperately stupid and dishonest challenge victims
> of religion are always hurling at agnostics and
> atheists -- "Can you prove there's no God? Well,
> can you? Can you?"
Exactly! Your argument falls because you are applying exactly that
argument! An argument from absence is the flip side of trying to prove
a negative.
>
> Even the Romans knew that tactic was bullshit, which
> gave rise to the expression, "Ei incumbit probatio qui
> dicit, non qui negat." ("The onus of proof lies on the
> man who affirms, not on the man who denies.")
>
> So, no, there is no and there can be no "evidence that
> things for which there is no evidence do not exist."
Exactly. So absence of evidence cannot be evidence of absence. To make
such a claim is to engage in just the kind of affirmation that is
referred to in your Latin quote.
>
> But the absolute fact that there has never been
> a shred more evidence of the existence of any gods
> than of talking trees will lead most intelligent,
> logical humans to arrive at the conclusion that both
> are figments of the imagination only and not to be
> taken seriously.
So, what would you say would qualify as evidence for the existence of God?
Jamffer
"Ivan Gowch" <ivan...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:brav74lapebmnib8c...@4ax.com...
You have no proof of that either.
There is no proof of God or of no God. We are proof that (we) can happen
once. With eternal time, who (knows), certainly not Ivan Gowch, or you.
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
IG:
> ==>> The absence of evidence -- particularly when that
==>> ==>> absence persists over milennia -- is undisputably
==>> ==>> evidence of absence.
==>> ==>No - that's wholly illogical.
It's perfectly logical. It's not less
logical because you fail to understand it.
[snip]
IG:
==>> You want gospel? Here's gospel: There are no gods, ghosts, goblins
==>> or anything supernatural whatsoever. Death comes to every living
==>> thing and is forever. There's no coming back from it and never was,
==>> and there's no afterlife. Life is interesting but meaningless, and
==>> the universe is utterly indifferent to us. THAT's gospel you can take
==>> to the bank. -Ivan Gowch
==>You have no proof of that either.
Don't be stupid. Just look around you and you'll see
for yourself the truth of what I said.
==>There is no proof of God or of no God.
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
There has never been a shred of evidence for the
existence of any of the hundreds of "gods" people
have believed in. That's because there aren't any.
It's not possible (or necessary) to *prove* the
NONexistence of anything, so that's a dishonest
red herring,as you well know -- or should.
--
"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."
-Thomas Jefferson
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
IG:
==>> ==>> The absence of evidence -- particularly when that
==>> ==>> absence persists over milennia -- is undisputably
==>> ==>> evidence of absence.
IG:
==>> The fact that humans have never, in their entire
==>> history, encountered evidence that there ever lived
==>> a talking tree is to most sane people perfectly
==>> good reason to conclude that such a creature has
==>> never existed. Anyone who would claim that there
==>> is nothing whatsoever upon which to base a
==>> conclusion about the existence of talking trees
==>> would be seen for what he was -- an argumentative
==>> sophist and a boring twit.
==>But your analogy is entirely false.
Actually, it is entirely true
==>We have everyday experience of
==>trees.
But we do not have "everyday experience" of
"God."
Game, set and match.
Thanks for playing.
IG:
==>> But the absolute fact that there has never been
==>> a shred more evidence of the existence of any gods
==>> than of talking trees will lead most intelligent,
==>> logical humans to arrive at the conclusion that both
==>> are figments of the imagination only and not to be
==>> taken seriously.
==>So, what would you say would qualify as evidence for the existence of God?
If the "God" of your imagining actually existed,
S/He would have no trouble whatsoever providing
humans with incontrovertible evidence of His/Her
existence.
The fact that no such evidence existsand has never
existed, must be compelling to anyone with a
functioning intelligence.
Absence oif evidence -- espcially when that absence
persists over millennia, is definitely evidence of
absence.
--
"A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the
capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is
actually ill." -H. L. Mencken
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Andrew
You haven't answered the question. What would you say would qualify as
evidence for the existence of God? If you cannot answer that, then you
have no way of knowing whether evidence exists or does not.
Jamffer
burden of those that doubt those fantastic claims. Most who claim that
there is a God, can neither define what a God is nor define what parameters
would prove that an undefined God existed.