No God, no need for God.

[Barry OGrady]

No God, no need for God.

===========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-Albert Einstein

[gladys swager]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> No God, no need for God.

> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
> -Albert Einstein

So according to you, Barry,
"Nobody made something out of nothing millions of years ago!!!???
and gradually that something diversified into the multitude of living organisms in the world to day!!!???
Doesn't make sense....what about the laws of Science???

creation.com/geology-questions-and-answers

[Steve Wilson]

Come Barry, don't be coy, are you going to answer Gladys? what is your
explanation for the origin of the universe and it being life-permitting?
You have already excluded multi-verses to increase the probabilities of
one universe being life-permitting. You don't have many options left.
An infinitely existing universe perhaps? This would a least explain your
playing down of the modern scientific findings about a beginning to the
universe due to its expansion.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:12:08 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 11, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> No God, no need for God.
>> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
>> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
>> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>So according to you, Barry,
> "Nobody made something out of nothing millions of years ago!!!???

No. That is your obsession.

>and gradually that something diversified into the multitude of living organisms in the world to day!!!???
>Doesn't make sense....what about the laws of Science???

So according to you, Gladys,
Nobody made something out of nothing thousands of years ago!!!???

Doesn't make sense....what about the laws of Science???

>creation.com/geology-questions-and-answers

Now Gladys, you know better than to offer links to that moronic site.
See if you can find a site with some credibility.

===========

[Barry OGrady]

I could say something about the huge number of stars and planets
making a life sustaining planet statistically likely, but I prefer to
be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?

You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
is to show evidence for God.
You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.

You are proud of your ignorance and arrogance.
I have no respect for your style of religion.

>Steve Wilson

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
> >On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >> No God, no need for God.
>

> >> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
> >> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
> >> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
> >> -Albert Einstein
>
> >Come Barry, don't be coy, are you going to answer Gladys? what is your
> >explanation for the origin of the universe and it being life-permitting?
> >You have already excluded multi-verses to increase the probabilities of
> >one universe being life-permitting. You don't have many options left.
> >An infinitely existing universe perhaps? This would a least explain your
> >playing down of the modern scientific findings about a beginning to the
> >universe due to its expansion.
>
> I could say something about the huge number of stars and planets
> making a life sustaining planet statistically likely, but I prefer to
> be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
> is to show evidence for God.
> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
> You are proud of your ignorance and arrogance.
> I have no respect for your style of religion.

Steve, pleased to read another posting from you.
I have been thinking of your mother, ten years younger than I am.
She could have experienced much of the bombing of south-east England
in her younger years, the rationing, poorer diet, and even if living further inland the conditions must have been very difficult. We were able to follow through on radio as the news was given from 'the other side of the world.

It was only in more recent years that I have learnt that I had an English paternal great-grandmother as well as Irish, Austrian and Polish forebears in that generation and German and Dutch grandfathers, the latter I knew personally.

If only all peoples throughout the world could understand the Biblical truth that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve,
the first parents as given in the Bible.

In the post-WW 2 years Evolution was included as a Science topic,
but there was no scientific evidence then..nor now almost seventy years later.

As I have calculated from some information given to me by B.O'Grady
he was possibly among the first high school students in NSW to be taught
that Evolution had happened in the far-distant past....
he is not willing to look at the evidence that Evolution is an impossibility.

In my studies, here in NSW, now equivalent to Tertiary level,
I did not have a course in Critical thinking techniques
of which you have given some information.
However, in the complex world in which we are now living, it seems to me
that in a modified form, even from early Secondary School studies,
that they can be helpful in making decisions in a careful, analytical way.

My background in farming in an area of much virgin bush-land before WW2
is proof to me that evolution could not have happened,
and surely it must be witnessed somewhere as continuing to happen,
somewhere in the world today in the natural state.

Barry, being of the post WW 2 generation, has been indoctrinated,
from 1963 or soon after, here in a NSW school,
and he is not willing to let-go of 'the baby-blanket'.

Thank -you again, Steve, for your contribution.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:24:59 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> >On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> >> No God, no need for God.

>If only all peoples throughout the world could understand the Biblical
>truth that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, the first parents
>as given in the Bible.

Have you considered moving to Iran?

>In the post-WW 2 years Evolution was included as a Science topic,
>but there was no scientific evidence then..nor now almost seventy years later.

I know you are lying because you acknowledged some of the evidence
I gave you.

Evidence from a Christian.
http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

>As I have calculated from some information given to me by B.O'Grady
>he was possibly among the first high school students in NSW to be taught
>that Evolution had happened in the far-distant past....
>he is not willing to look at the evidence that Evolution is an impossibility.

Barry can't understand how there can be so much evidence for
evolution and none for creation. Gladys favourite site,
Creation Ministries Irrational, can't come up with evidence for
God or creation.

>In my studies, here in NSW, now equivalent to Tertiary level,
>I did not have a course in Critical thinking techniques
>of which you have given some information.
>However, in the complex world in which we are now living, it seems to me
>that in a modified form, even from early Secondary School studies,
>that they can be helpful in making decisions in a careful, analytical way.

Steve may be smarter than you but he is just as brainwashed.
Steve can see the water tight logic in my proof of no good God
but he dare not admit it. The funny thing is if this magical God
exists it will know you both lack faith.

>My background in farming in an area of much virgin bush-land before WW2
>is proof to me that evolution could not have happened,
>and surely it must be witnessed somewhere as continuing to happen,
>somewhere in the world today in the natural state.

If Steve buys that his mental illness is more advanced than I thought.

>Barry, being of the post WW 2 generation, has been indoctrinated,
>from 1963 or soon after, here in a NSW school,
>and he is not willing to let-go of 'the baby-blanket'.

Gladys says 'baby blamket' because she doesn't know the
real phrase is 'security blanket.'

>Thank -you again, Steve, for your contribution.

Gladys still didn't answer the question.
***How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent
design?***

Steve still needs to show that
1) God exists
2) Objective morality exists
3) There is a connection

===========

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
> >> >On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >> >> No God, no need for God.
>

And have you been everywhere and been involved in all situations
so that you know assuredly that you have no need for God.
I have made a guess that you are about65 years of age.
You haven't a clue now what the next 20 or 30 years may 'put on your plate'

>
> >If only all peoples throughout the world could understand the Biblical
> >truth that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, the first parents
> >as given in the Bible.
>
> Have you considered moving to Iran?
>

Rather a cryptic comment!!???

>
> >In the post-WW 2 years Evolution was included as a Science topic,
> >but there was no scientific evidence then..nor now almost seventy years
> >later.
>
> I know you are lying because you acknowledged some of the evidence
> I gave you.
>

What was the evidence and when??

>
> Evidence from a Christian.
>
> http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence
>

Yes, there are Christians you have been caught up in the God used evolution racket? Why would an Almighty God work by slow bits-and-pieces creating
when God could speak the word and it happened?

>
> >As I have calculated from some information given to me by B.O'Grady
> >he was possibly among the first high school students in NSW to be taught
> >that Evolution had happened in the far-distant past....
> >he is not willing to look at the evidence that Evolution is an impossibility.
>
> Barry can't understand how there can be so much evidence for
> evolution and none for creation. Gladys favourite site,
>

> Creation Ministries (snipped) International can't come up with evidence for
> God or creation.
>
John 4 : 34 God is a Spirit; and they who would worship Him
must worship in Spirit and in truth.
is the reason I can't show you God, but His works are every where in the world, even though some are eroded by the weather.

> >In my studies, here in NSW, now equivalent to Tertiary level,
> >I did not have a course in Critical thinking techniques
> >>of which you have given some information.
> >However, in the complex world in which we are now living, it seems to me
> >that in a modified form, even from early Secondary School studies,
> >that they can be helpful in making decisions in a careful, analytical way.
>
> Steve may be smarter than you but he is just as brainwashed.
> Steve can see the water tight logic in my proof of no good God
> but he dare not admit it. The funny thing is if this magical God
> exists it will know you both lack faith.
>

And, of course, Barry, you do know all the truth,
every jot and tittle and ink-blot of it.

>
> >My background in farming in an area of much virgin bush-land before WW2
> >is proof to me that evolution could not have happened,
> >and surely it must be witnessed somewhere as continuing to happen,
> >somewhere in the world today in the natural state.
>
> If Steve buys that his mental illness is more advanced than I thought.
>

So a person is Mentally Ill when they do not accept what you accept, B,O'G and do not act as you want them to act. You have taken a term, that is inaccurate in itself, thoughts and emotions can be incorrect or inappropriate,
but they cannot be sick, even when they are extremely bizarre.

>
> >Barry, being of the post WW 2 generation, has been indoctrinated,
> >from 1963 or soon after, here in a NSW school,
> >and he is not willing to let-go of 'the baby-blanket'.
>
> Gladys says 'baby blamket' because she doesn't know the
> real phrase is 'security blanket.'
>

Evolution is no security...even if you name it as such.

>
> >Thank -you again, Steve, for your contribution.
>
> Gladys still didn't answer the question.
> ***How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent
> design?***
>

I do not recall you giving me that question.
the Intelligent designer is the great 'I AM' of the Bible,
I am the way, the truth and the life,
no one comes to the Father except by Me. john 14 : 6
I am the light of the world, he who follows Me shall not walk in darness, but shall have the light of life. John 8 : 12

>
> Steve still needs to show that
> 1) God exists 2) Objective morality exists 3) There is a connection
>

Barry I have travelled from the south to the north, and from the easst
to the west of Australia
and I know of no other being Who could have created such a vast,
and wonderful land, but God Almighty,
somethimes tatty, but humans were responsible for that.

> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
> -Albert Einstein

And Albert Einstein, genius though he was,
did not know everything about everything.......And neither do I!!
Perhaps A.Einstein, genius though he was, did not look in some of the right places to give him better explanations on some issues.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:24:27 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> >> >On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> >> >> No God, no need for God.
>>
>And have you been everywhere and been involved in all situations
>so that you know assuredly that you have no need for God.

From what you tell me we would all be better off without God.

>> >If only all peoples throughout the world could understand the Biblical
>> >truth that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, the first parents
>> >as given in the Bible.
>>
>> Have you considered moving to Iran?
>>
>Rather a cryptic comment!!???

Iran is a theocracy where everyone 'believes' the same things.

>> >In the post-WW 2 years Evolution was included as a Science topic,
>> >but there was no scientific evidence then..nor now almost seventy years
>> >later.
>>
>> I know you are lying because you acknowledged some of the evidence
>> I gave you.
>>
>What was the evidence and when??

http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

>> Evidence from a Christian.
>>
>> http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence
>>
>Yes, there are Christians you have been caught up in the God used
>evolution racket?

I can't understand why they don't abandon Christianity completely.

>Why would an Almighty God work by slow bits-and-pieces creating
>when God could speak the word and it happened?

Who are you to question God's motives?
God chose to have Jesus killed on a stick when a much more
effective method would have been for God to say, "Unmerited
and unforgivable curse of mine begone" and it would be and we
would all be happy and healthy without being robots.

>> Creation Ministries Irrational can't come up with evidence for

>> God or creation.
>>
>John 4 : 34 God is a Spirit; and they who would worship Him
>must worship in Spirit and in truth.
>is the reason I can't show you God, but His works are every where in
>the world, even though some are eroded by the weather.

I provided you with much evidence for evolution and told
you where to find more and you can't come up with a single
piece of evidence for God and creation.

>> >In my studies, here in NSW, now equivalent to Tertiary level,
>> >I did not have a course in Critical thinking techniques
>> >>of which you have given some information.
>> >However, in the complex world in which we are now living, it seems to me
>> >that in a modified form, even from early Secondary School studies,
>> >that they can be helpful in making decisions in a careful, analytical way.
>>
>> Steve may be smarter than you but he is just as brainwashed.
>> Steve can see the water tight logic in my proof of no good God
>> but he dare not admit it. The funny thing is if this magical God
>> exists it will know you both lack faith.
>>
>And, of course, Barry, you do know all the truth,
>every jot and tittle and ink-blot of it.

In your black and white world it must seem that way. You see
me providing information that your brain can't comprehend
and you assume I must know everything.
Your cult leaders never told you about grey.

>> >My background in farming in an area of much virgin bush-land before WW2
>> >is proof to me that evolution could not have happened,
>> >and surely it must be witnessed somewhere as continuing to happen,
>> >somewhere in the world today in the natural state.
>>
>> If Steve buys that his mental illness is more advanced than I thought.
>>
>So a person is Mentally Ill when they do not accept what you accept,
>B,O'G and do not act as you want them to act. You have taken a term,
>that is inaccurate in itself, thoughts and emotions can be incorrect
>or inappropriate, but they cannot be sick, even when they are
>extremely bizarre.

It is your illness that causes your extremely bizarre thinking.

>> >Barry, being of the post WW 2 generation, has been indoctrinated,
>> >from 1963 or soon after, here in a NSW school,
>> >and he is not willing to let-go of 'the baby-blanket'.
>>
>> Gladys says 'baby blamket' because she doesn't know the
>> real phrase is 'security blanket.'
>>
>Evolution is no security...even if you name it as such.

We don't need to suck up to an imaginary God to avoid hell.

>> >Thank -you again, Steve, for your contribution.
>>
>> Gladys still didn't answer the question.
>> ***How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent
>> design?***
>>
>I do not recall you giving me that question.

That doesn't surprise me. Your short term memory is shot.

>the Intelligent designer is the great 'I AM' of the Bible,
>I am the way, the truth and the life,
> no one comes to the Father except by Me. john 14 : 6
>I am the light of the world, he who follows Me shall not walk in
>darness, but shall have the light of life. John 8 : 12

You claim life and the universe require an intelligent designer
but

***How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent
design?***

Without the answer to that question creation is dead in the water.

>> Steve still needs to show that
>> 1) God exists
>> 2) Objective morality exists
>> 3) There is a connection
>>
>Barry I have travelled from the south to the north, and from the easst
>to the west of Australia
>and I know of no other being Who could have created such a vast,
> and wonderful land, but God Almighty,
>somethimes tatty, but humans were responsible for that.

How did humans force almighty God's hand?

>> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
>> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
>> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>And Albert Einstein, genius though he was,
>did not know everything about everything.......And neither do I!!

You 'know' things that are not true.

>Perhaps A.Einstein, genius though he was, did not look in some of the
>right places to give him better explanations on some issues.

I take it you do not see with deep regret that God punishes so many
of His children for their numerous stupidities?
It appears your morals are in the gutter with Steves.
Steve thinks its OK for God to flaunt his own laws because we can't
stop him. In Steve's world might makes right.
Fortunately for most of us our moral standards are far higher.

Just another reason why you should escape the tyranny.
You surely don't want to be a slave.

===========
Creationists won't say how an intelligent designer originated without intelligent
design

[Steve Wilson]

On 11/05/2013 22:59, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:35:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> No God, no need for God.
>>>
>>> ===========
>>> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
>>> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
>>> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>
>>
>> Come Barry, don't be coy, are you going to answer Gladys? what is your
>> explanation for the origin of the universe and it being life-permitting?
>> You have already excluded multi-verses to increase the probabilities of
>> one universe being life-permitting. You don't have many options left.
>> An infinitely existing universe perhaps? This would a least explain your
>> playing down of the modern scientific findings about a beginning to the
>> universe due to its expansion.
>
> I could say something about the huge number of stars and planets
> making a life sustaining planet statistically likely,

This response shows you don't understand the issue at all. You are
assuming that this universe *is* life permitting in the first place,
which is the very thing that needs to be explained. As an atheist you
have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.

> but I prefer to
> be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
>

I am not as you are, that is; 'between a rock and a hard place'. The
existence of an infinite, immaterial unembodied mind, i.e. God, offers a
perfectly coherent explanation for both the creation of the universe out
of nothing (space, time, matter and energy) and having just the right
initial values and constants to make it a life-permitting.

> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
> is to show evidence for God.

The evidence is right before you but you would rather deny it God is in
view.

> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
>

And yet the latest scientific discoveries all point to the creation of
the universe out of nothing through a very highly ordered event called
the 'Big Bang'. It is you who pours cold water on science by stating
that the big bang is 'not proven fact'.

And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
drives your whole atheistic position.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:36:23 +0100, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/05/2013 22:59, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:35:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> No God, no need for God.
>>>>
>>>> ===========
>>>> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children
>>>> for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
>>>> responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
>>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come Barry, don't be coy, are you going to answer Gladys? what is your
>>> explanation for the origin of the universe and it being life-permitting?
>>> You have already excluded multi-verses to increase the probabilities of
>>> one universe being life-permitting. You don't have many options left.
>>> An infinitely existing universe perhaps? This would a least explain your
>>> playing down of the modern scientific findings about a beginning to the
>>> universe due to its expansion.
>>
>> I could say something about the huge number of stars and planets
>> making a life sustaining planet statistically likely,
>
>This response shows you don't understand the issue at all. You are
>assuming that this universe *is* life permitting in the first place,
>which is the very thing that needs to be explained.

You seem to be assuming that life comes in only one form.
It could be that the type of life was determined by conditions
on earth. Life exists in the depths of the ocean where there
is immense pressure and total darkness.

>As an atheist you
>have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
>cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
>existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
>universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
>and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.

I prefer to be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?

>I am not as you are, that is; 'between a rock and a hard place'. The
>existence of an infinite, immaterial unembodied mind, i.e. God, offers a
>perfectly coherent explanation for both the creation of the universe out
>of nothing (space, time, matter and energy) and having just the right
>initial values and constants to make it a life-permitting.

Now all you have to do is explain how conditions allow a logic
and physics defying being.
Can you answer the question I asked Gladys?

How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent design?

>> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
>> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
>> is to show evidence for God.
>
>The evidence is right before you but you would rather deny it God is in
>view.

Don't think you should spare my feelings. If you make a fool of
me with your evidence we both win.

>> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
>> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
>> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
>> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
>>
>And yet the latest scientific discoveries all point to the creation of
>the universe out of nothing through a very highly ordered event called
>the 'Big Bang'. It is you who pours cold water on science by stating
>that the big bang is 'not proven fact'.

I am aware that a lot of findings suggest a big bang but it
is not proven and doesn't answer the question as where
the material came from.

>And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
>downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
>possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
>that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
>spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
>implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
>that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
>drives your whole atheistic position.

What drives my atheistic position is the total lack of anything
that could be called spiritual. There really is no God and no
supernatural. That's why you can't provide any evidence.
However I can and have provide much evidence for
evolution and shown where more can be found.
Much of it will be over your head but the are sites that explain
evolution very clearly.

One example that Gladys has acknowledged is from a
Christian at http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence .

>Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

[Steve Wilson]

Surely you know that even a tiny alteration to any of the initial values
or constants would render the universe totally life-prohibiting? This
means no life of any type would exist, which includes the life around
the deep-sea volcanic vents. You totally misunderstand the fine-tuning
of the universe if you think that only life that is dependent upon the
sun would not get started.

>> As an atheist you
>> have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
>> cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
>> existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
>> universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
>> and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.
>
> I prefer to be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
>

I find this disingenuous. You imply my dishonesty because as you have
no coherent explanation and have retreated into agnosticism, you want me
to join you to likewise commit rational suicide. If you had a logically
coherent explanation, there is no doubt you would be offering it at
every relevant opportunity. As I have a logically coherent explanation
in God I have no need to take refuge in convenient agnosticism.

>> I am not as you are, that is; 'between a rock and a hard place'. The
>> existence of an infinite, immaterial unembodied mind, i.e. God, offers a
>> perfectly coherent explanation for both the creation of the universe out
>> of nothing (space, time, matter and energy) and having just the right
>> initial values and constants to make it a life-permitting.
>
> Now all you have to do is explain how conditions allow a logic
> and physics defying being.
> Can you answer the question I asked Gladys?
> How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent design?
>

This is a stupid question. God is a necessary being. He has life in
himself. He cannot not exist. He is the beginning-less cause of the
universe.

>>> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
>>> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
>>> is to show evidence for God.
>>
>> The evidence is right before you but you would rather deny it God is in
>> view.
>
> Don't think you should spare my feelings. If you make a fool of
> me with your evidence we both win.
>
>>> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
>>> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
>>> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
>>> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
>>>
>> And yet the latest scientific discoveries all point to the creation of
>> the universe out of nothing through a very highly ordered event called
>> the 'Big Bang'. It is you who pours cold water on science by stating
>> that the big bang is 'not proven fact'.
>
> I am aware that a lot of findings suggest a big bang but it
> is not proven and doesn't answer the question as where
> the material came from.
>

You would have absolutely no problem with the big bang if it did not
pose metaphysical questions. Asking 'where the material came from'
shows you fail to grasp the issue because all matter, energy, time and
space came into existence at that point of singularity. Scientists can
suggest the conditions of the Big Bang to milliseconds after the big
bang because the laws of physics prevail but science comes to a
shuddering halt at the point of singularity because the physical
universe with its laws do not exist. The cause of the universe must by
definition be non-physical, timeless, spaceless and personal. An
infinite creator mind fits the bill in a most wonderful way.

>> And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
>> downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
>> possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
>> that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
>> spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
>> implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
>> that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
>> drives your whole atheistic position.
>
> What drives my atheistic position is the total lack of anything
> that could be called spiritual.

> There really is no God and no
> supernatural.

You lay claim to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.

> That's why you can't provide any evidence.
> However I can and have provide much evidence for
> evolution and shown where more can be found.
> Much of it will be over your head but the are sites that explain
> evolution very clearly.
>

As I've said before, even if true, the theory of evolution is dependent
on the fine-tuning of the universe for evolution to even get going. The
fine-tuning of the universe undermines your claim that evolution
disproves God.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 17:25:40 +0100, Steve Wilson

Is God a form of life?

>>> As an atheist you
>>> have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
>>> cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
>>> existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
>>> universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
>>> and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.
>>
>> I prefer to be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
>>
>I find this disingenuous. You imply my dishonesty because as you have
>no coherent explanation and have retreated into agnosticism, you want me
>to join you to likewise commit rational suicide. If you had a logically
>coherent explanation, there is no doubt you would be offering it at
>every relevant opportunity. As I have a logically coherent explanation
>in God I have no need to take refuge in convenient agnosticism.

You seem quite sure of that so I presume you will be
providing evidence.

>>> I am not as you are, that is; 'between a rock and a hard place'. The
>>> existence of an infinite, immaterial unembodied mind, i.e. God, offers a
>>> perfectly coherent explanation for both the creation of the universe out
>>> of nothing (space, time, matter and energy) and having just the right
>>> initial values and constants to make it a life-permitting.
>>
>> Now all you have to do is explain how conditions allow a logic
>> and physics defying being.
>> Can you answer the question I asked Gladys?
>> How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent design?
>>
>This is a stupid question. God is a necessary being. He has life in
>himself. He cannot not exist. He is the beginning-less cause of the
>universe.

That's a very bold assertion. I'd like to see your evidence.

>>>> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
>>>> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
>>>> is to show evidence for God.
>>>
>>> The evidence is right before you but you would rather deny it God is in
>>> view.
>>
>> Don't think you should spare my feelings. If you make a fool of
>> me with your evidence we both win.

You should feel free to present your evidence.

>>>> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
>>>> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
>>>> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
>>>> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
>>>>
>>> And yet the latest scientific discoveries all point to the creation of
>>> the universe out of nothing through a very highly ordered event called
>>> the 'Big Bang'. It is you who pours cold water on science by stating
>>> that the big bang is 'not proven fact'.
>>
>> I am aware that a lot of findings suggest a big bang but it
>> is not proven and doesn't answer the question as where
>> the material came from.
>>
>You would have absolutely no problem with the big bang if it did not
>pose metaphysical questions. Asking 'where the material came from'
>shows you fail to grasp the issue because all matter, energy, time and
>space came into existence at that point of singularity. Scientists can
>suggest the conditions of the Big Bang to milliseconds after the big
>bang because the laws of physics prevail but science comes to a
>shuddering halt at the point of singularity because the physical
>universe with its laws do not exist. The cause of the universe must by
>definition be non-physical, timeless, spaceless and personal. An
>infinite creator mind fits the bill in a most wonderful way.

You have no way of knowing that.

>>> And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
>>> downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
>>> possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
>>> that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
>>> spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
>>> implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
>>> that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
>>> drives your whole atheistic position.
>>
>> What drives my atheistic position is the total lack of anything
>> that could be called spiritual.
>
>> There really is no God and no supernatural.
>
>You lay claim to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.

Some good evidence from you would set me straight.

>> That's why you can't provide any evidence.
>> However I can and have provide much evidence for
>> evolution and shown where more can be found.
>> Much of it will be over your head but the are sites that explain
>> evolution very clearly.
>>
>As I've said before, even if true, the theory of evolution is dependent
>on the fine-tuning of the universe for evolution to even get going. The
>fine-tuning of the universe undermines your claim that evolution
>disproves God.

So far all I have from you are unfounded assertions.
I'd like to see the evidence on which your claims are based.

[Steve Wilson]

Are you even aware of the problem fine-tuning poses for atheists?

>>>> As an atheist you
>>>> have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
>>>> cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
>>>> existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
>>>> universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
>>>> and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.
>>>
>>> I prefer to be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
>>>
>> I find this disingenuous. You imply my dishonesty because as you have
>> no coherent explanation and have retreated into agnosticism, you want me
>> to join you to likewise commit rational suicide. If you had a logically
>> coherent explanation, there is no doubt you would be offering it at
>> every relevant opportunity. As I have a logically coherent explanation
>> in God I have no need to take refuge in convenient agnosticism.
>
> You seem quite sure of that so I presume you will be
> providing evidence.
>

There are only three possibilities to explain the fine-tuning of the
universe:

1. necessity
2. chance
3. design.

It is recognised by all that there is no reason that the fine balance of
the initial values and cosmological constants have to be as they are,
they could be easily be different. If one wants to defend necessity one
has to say that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible, which is
absurd. So that leaves options 2 and 3. It is recognised that the
chances of our universe coming into being with just the right balance of
values by accident is so infinitesimally small that it cannot be
seriously accepted an plausible explanation. Multiverses are thus
postulated as a way to increase the chances of one universe having just
the right balance of values to make it life-permitting. However we only
know of one universe, our own. And anyone who wants to offer the
multi-verse explanation needs to suggest a mechanism by which an
infinite number of universes are produced which does not itself involve
fine-tuning. Then there are the intractable problems associated with
actual infinities. So suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe for
life happened as a happy accident is very implausible.

However consider possibility 3. and it all falls into place very nicely.

However you won't do that because, though you don't know how the
universe came to be fine-tuned, you do know God had nothing to do with
it. This is why I find your sudden attack of agnosticism rather fake.
It is an attempt to avoid criticism rather than a genuinely held
position. For if you were genuinely agnostic on fine-tuning, you would
seriously consider a designer.

>>>> I am not as you are, that is; 'between a rock and a hard place'. The
>>>> existence of an infinite, immaterial unembodied mind, i.e. God, offers a
>>>> perfectly coherent explanation for both the creation of the universe out
>>>> of nothing (space, time, matter and energy) and having just the right
>>>> initial values and constants to make it a life-permitting.
>>>
>>> Now all you have to do is explain how conditions allow a logic
>>> and physics defying being.
>>> Can you answer the question I asked Gladys?
>>> How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent design?
>>>
>> This is a stupid question. God is a necessary being. He has life in
>> himself. He cannot not exist. He is the beginning-less cause of the
>> universe.
>
> That's a very bold assertion. I'd like to see your evidence.
>

Would you be satisfied if I sent you a piece of God in a jar? It must
be obvious even to you that the cause of the universe cannot be part of
the universe, but must be external to it, as something cannot bring
itself into being out of nothing. The cause must, by necessity, be
non-physical, time-less, space-less and personal because it exercised
volition. The only explanation is an unembodied mind that is
unimaginably powerful.

Basic logical inference, something that appears to allude you completely.

>>>> And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
>>>> downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
>>>> possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
>>>> that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
>>>> spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
>>>> implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
>>>> that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
>>>> drives your whole atheistic position.
>>>
>>> What drives my atheistic position is the total lack of anything
>>> that could be called spiritual.
>>
>>> There really is no God and no supernatural.
>>
>> You lay claim to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.
>
> Some good evidence from you would set me straight.
>

As you made the assertion, how about you providing some good evidence
that 'there really is no God and no supernatural' rather than deploying
the worn-out atheist diversionary tactic? So answer this question; As
you clearly are not in possession of all knowledge and all the evidence,
Just how do you know that there is no God and no supernatural?

>>> That's why you can't provide any evidence.
>>> However I can and have provide much evidence for
>>> evolution and shown where more can be found.
>>> Much of it will be over your head but the are sites that explain
>>> evolution very clearly.
>>>
>> As I've said before, even if true, the theory of evolution is dependent
>> on the fine-tuning of the universe for evolution to even get going. The
>> fine-tuning of the universe undermines your claim that evolution
>> disproves God.
>
> So far all I have from you are unfounded assertions.
> I'd like to see the evidence on which your claims are based.
>

So far all I've had from you is evasion.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:33:47 +0100, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/05/2013 20:27, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 17:25:40 +0100, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 11:16, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:36:23 +0100, Steve Wilson
>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/05/2013 22:59, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:35:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
>>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>>> No God, no need for God.

>>> Surely you know that even a tiny alteration to any of the initial values
>>> or constants would render the universe totally life-prohibiting? This
>>> means no life of any type would exist, which includes the life around
>>> the deep-sea volcanic vents. You totally misunderstand the fine-tuning
>>> of the universe if you think that only life that is dependent upon the
>>> sun would not get started.
>>
>> Is God a form of life?
>>
>Are you even aware of the problem fine-tuning poses for atheists?

Gladys says God is life and she also says life can only ever
come from life. So Gladys is saying God can't be the source
of life.

If God is a form of life then life can exist without an ideal
universe. Also consider that there may be other forms of
life that require totally different conditions.

>>>>> As an atheist you
>>>>> have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
>>>>> cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
>>>>> existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
>>>>> universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
>>>>> and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
>>>>
>>> I find this disingenuous. You imply my dishonesty because as you have
>>> no coherent explanation and have retreated into agnosticism, you want me
>>> to join you to likewise commit rational suicide. If you had a logically
>>> coherent explanation, there is no doubt you would be offering it at
>>> every relevant opportunity. As I have a logically coherent explanation
>>> in God I have no need to take refuge in convenient agnosticism.
>>
>> You seem quite sure of that so I presume you will be
>> providing evidence.
>>
>
>There are only three possibilities to explain the fine-tuning of the
>universe:
>
>1. necessity
>2. chance
>3. design.

I could add
4. Something we don't know about
which seems most likely.

>It is recognised by all that there is no reason that the fine balance of
>the initial values and cosmological constants have to be as they are,
>they could be easily be different. If one wants to defend necessity one
>has to say that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible, which is
>absurd. So that leaves options 2 and 3. It is recognised that the
>chances of our universe coming into being with just the right balance of
>values by accident is so infinitesimally small that it cannot be
>seriously accepted an plausible explanation. Multiverses are thus
>postulated as a way to increase the chances of one universe having just
>the right balance of values to make it life-permitting. However we only
>know of one universe, our own. And anyone who wants to offer the
>multi-verse explanation needs to suggest a mechanism by which an
>infinite number of universes are produced which does not itself involve
>fine-tuning. Then there are the intractable problems associated with
>actual infinities. So suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe for
>life happened as a happy accident is very implausible.
>
>However consider possibility 3. and it all falls into place very nicely.

Will you consider possibility 4.?

>However you won't do that because, though you don't know how the
>universe came to be fine-tuned, you do know God had nothing to do with
>it. This is why I find your sudden attack of agnosticism rather fake.
>It is an attempt to avoid criticism rather than a genuinely held
>position. For if you were genuinely agnostic on fine-tuning, you would
>seriously consider a designer.

The problem with that is that the designer is far less likely than the
possibility that the universe came from nothing, and you would need
to explain where the designer came from.
That's why I go with 4.

>>>>> I am not as you are, that is; 'between a rock and a hard place'. The
>>>>> existence of an infinite, immaterial unembodied mind, i.e. God, offers a
>>>>> perfectly coherent explanation for both the creation of the universe out
>>>>> of nothing (space, time, matter and energy) and having just the right
>>>>> initial values and constants to make it a life-permitting.
>>>>
>>>> Now all you have to do is explain how conditions allow a logic
>>>> and physics defying being.
>>>> Can you answer the question I asked Gladys?
>>>> How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent design?
>>>>
>>> This is a stupid question. God is a necessary being. He has life in
>>> himself. He cannot not exist. He is the beginning-less cause of the
>>> universe.
>>
>> That's a very bold assertion. I'd like to see your evidence.
>>
>Would you be satisfied if I sent you a piece of God in a jar?

I have come up with a way God could prove himself to everybody
in a way that would leave no doubt.
God is said to be everywhere at once so Go could knock on every
door in the world at the same time. How could I deny God then?
What do you think? I have asked Gladys to put my idea to God
and I ask you to do the same.

>It must
>be obvious even to you that the cause of the universe cannot be part of
>the universe, but must be external to it, as something cannot bring
>itself into being out of nothing.

As far as we know nothing comes from nothing but we don't know
what happened way back.
The cause of God can't be part of God, but must be external to it.

>The cause must, by necessity, be
>non-physical, time-less, space-less and personal because it exercised
>volition. The only explanation is an unembodied mind that is
>unimaginably powerful.

That doesn't sound like an explanation at all. Radical claims require
radical evidence.

>>>>>> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
>>>>>> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
>>>>>> is to show evidence for God.
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence is right before you but you would rather deny it God is in
>>>>> view.
>>>>
>>>> Don't think you should spare my feelings. If you make a fool of
>>>> me with your evidence we both win.
>>
>> You should feel free to present your evidence.

I mean that.

>>>>>> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
>>>>>> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
>>>>>> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
>>>>>> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And yet the latest scientific discoveries all point to the creation of
>>>>> the universe out of nothing through a very highly ordered event called
>>>>> the 'Big Bang'. It is you who pours cold water on science by stating
>>>>> that the big bang is 'not proven fact'.
>>>>
>>>> I am aware that a lot of findings suggest a big bang but it
>>>> is not proven and doesn't answer the question as where
>>>> the material came from.
>>>>
>>> You would have absolutely no problem with the big bang if it did not
>>> pose metaphysical questions. Asking 'where the material came from'
>>> shows you fail to grasp the issue because all matter, energy, time and
>>> space came into existence at that point of singularity. Scientists can
>>> suggest the conditions of the Big Bang to milliseconds after the big
>>> bang because the laws of physics prevail but science comes to a
>>> shuddering halt at the point of singularity because the physical
>>> universe with its laws do not exist. The cause of the universe must by
>>> definition be non-physical, timeless, spaceless and personal. An
>>> infinite creator mind fits the bill in a most wonderful way.
>>
>> You have no way of knowing that.
>>
>Basic logical inference, something that appears to allude you completely.

Except that an infinite creator mind is impossible.

>>>>> And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
>>>>> downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
>>>>> possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
>>>>> that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
>>>>> spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
>>>>> implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
>>>>> that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
>>>>> drives your whole atheistic position.
>>>>
>>>> What drives my atheistic position is the total lack of anything
>>>> that could be called spiritual.
>>>
>>>> There really is no God and no supernatural.
>>>
>>> You lay claim to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.
>>
>> Some good evidence from you would set me straight.
>>
>As you made the assertion, how about you providing some good evidence
>that 'there really is no God and no supernatural' rather than deploying
>the worn-out atheist diversionary tactic? So answer this question; As
>you clearly are not in possession of all knowledge and all the evidence,
>Just how do you know that there is no God and no supernatural?

You make the claim. You must provide the evidence.
If you were honest you would admit your God hypotheses
is nothing but wishful thinking.
You can believe whatever you like as long as you don't
try to pass it off as fact.

>>>> That's why you can't provide any evidence.
>>>> However I can and have provide much evidence for
>>>> evolution and shown where more can be found.
>>>> Much of it will be over your head but the are sites that explain
>>>> evolution very clearly.
>>>>
>>> As I've said before, even if true, the theory of evolution is dependent
>>> on the fine-tuning of the universe for evolution to even get going. The
>>> fine-tuning of the universe undermines your claim that evolution
>>> disproves God.
>>
>> So far all I have from you are unfounded assertions.
>> I'd like to see the evidence on which your claims are based.
>>
>So far all I've had from you is evasion.

Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?
Your claims are radical thus need radical evidence.
You claim to know things nobody knows.

Are you willing to explain where your ideas come from?

[Barry OGrady]

I know you are busy Steve, and will reply when you have
time, but I did have another thought that I would like to
put to you.

Steve Wilson <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>There are only three possibilities to explain the fine-tuning of the
>>universe:
>>
>>1. necessity
>>2. chance
>>3. design.
>
>I could add
>4. Something we don't know about
>which seems most likely.

Another possibility which fits perfectly is
5. In the future humans develop amazing technology that is
capable of creating a universe. They travel back in time to
before time began. They then used the technology to create
the universe and life.
Now I have a logically coherent explanation thus no need to
dick around with God(s).

You may worship me in my humbleness if you wish.
It is your choice of course but if you do not worship
me I will create a hell just for you.

===========

I have come up with a way God could prove himself to everybody
in a way that would leave no doubt.

God is said to be everywhere at once so God could knock on every

[Steve Wilson]

By your evasion you clearly show you know nothing about the fine-tuning
of the universe and the problem it poses for atheism.

> If God is a form of life then life can exist without an ideal
> universe.

You think fine-tuning means and ideal universe?

> Also consider that there may be other forms of
> life that require totally different conditions.
>

Other forms of life in another universe? If so that is mere speculation
which does nothing to address the direct issue of the fine-tuning of
*this* universe.

>>>>>> As an atheist you
>>>>>> have to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalistic
>>>>>> cosmologists, who do understand the issue, have been forced to posit the
>>>>>> existence of many universes in order to multiply the chances of one
>>>>>> universe appearing with just the right combination of initial quantities
>>>>>> and constants to allow life to exist. However you reject this explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer to be honest and admit I don't know. Can you be that honest?
>>>>>
>>>> I find this disingenuous. You imply my dishonesty because as you have
>>>> no coherent explanation and have retreated into agnosticism, you want me
>>>> to join you to likewise commit rational suicide. If you had a logically
>>>> coherent explanation, there is no doubt you would be offering it at
>>>> every relevant opportunity. As I have a logically coherent explanation
>>>> in God I have no need to take refuge in convenient agnosticism.
>>>
>>> You seem quite sure of that so I presume you will be
>>> providing evidence.
>>>
>>
>> There are only three possibilities to explain the fine-tuning of the
>> universe:
>>
>> 1. necessity
>> 2. chance
>> 3. design.
>
> I could add
> 4. Something we don't know about
> which seems most likely.
>

This is merely an escape route of the logically bankrupt atheist, the
atheist version of 'God of the gaps'.

>> It is recognised by all that there is no reason that the fine balance of
>> the initial values and cosmological constants have to be as they are,
>> they could be easily be different. If one wants to defend necessity one
>> has to say that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible, which is
>> absurd. So that leaves options 2 and 3. It is recognised that the
>> chances of our universe coming into being with just the right balance of
>> values by accident is so infinitesimally small that it cannot be
>> seriously accepted an plausible explanation. Multiverses are thus
>> postulated as a way to increase the chances of one universe having just
>> the right balance of values to make it life-permitting. However we only
>> know of one universe, our own. And anyone who wants to offer the
>> multi-verse explanation needs to suggest a mechanism by which an
>> infinite number of universes are produced which does not itself involve
>> fine-tuning. Then there are the intractable problems associated with
>> actual infinities. So suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe for
>> life happened as a happy accident is very implausible.
>>
>> However consider possibility 3. and it all falls into place very nicely.
>
> Will you consider possibility 4.?
>

No because there are only three logical alternatives to explain this
scientific observation. Offering agnosticism is a cop-out because there
is no credible atheist explanation yet design will not be countenanced
due to baseless philosophical belief. It is why I said you are 'between
a rock and a hard place'. By retreating into a 'convenient agnosticism'
you have demonstrated the incoherence of atheism to explain a profound
fact about the universe.

> God is said to be everywhere at once so Go[d] could knock on every

> door in the world at the same time. How could I deny God then?
> What do you think? I have asked Gladys to put my idea to God
> and I ask you to do the same.
>

What an idiot.

>> It must
>> be obvious even to you that the cause of the universe cannot be part of
>> the universe, but must be external to it, as something cannot bring
>> itself into being out of nothing.
>
> As far as we know nothing comes from nothing but we don't know
> what happened way back.
> The cause of God can't be part of God, but must be external to it.
>
>> The cause must, by necessity, be
>> non-physical, time-less, space-less and personal because it exercised
>> volition. The only explanation is an unembodied mind that is
>> unimaginably powerful.
>
> That doesn't sound like an explanation at all. Radical claims require
> radical evidence.
>

Nothing radical about it. It has been the foundation of Western
civilisation for centuries, and Australia too is built on Christian
belief as evidenced by your assumption of a morality based on the
intrinsic moral worth of humans.

>>>>>>> You have no credibility. You rave on about objective moral
>>>>>>> standards being due to God but you can't get to step one which
>>>>>>> is to show evidence for God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The evidence is right before you but you would rather deny it God is in
>>>>>> view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't think you should spare my feelings. If you make a fool of
>>>>> me with your evidence we both win.
>>>
>>> You should feel free to present your evidence.
>
> I mean that.
>

You are ridiculous.

>>>>>>> You try to use scientific ideas to support your non-scientific
>>>>>>> claims but you can't accept logic which proves there is no
>>>>>>> almighty and loving God. Seems your world view would
>>>>>>> fall apart if you had to accept logical proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet the latest scientific discoveries all point to the creation of
>>>>>> the universe out of nothing through a very highly ordered event called
>>>>>> the 'Big Bang'. It is you who pours cold water on science by stating
>>>>>> that the big bang is 'not proven fact'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aware that a lot of findings suggest a big bang but it
>>>>> is not proven and doesn't answer the question as where
>>>>> the material came from.
>>>>>
>>>> You would have absolutely no problem with the big bang if it did not
>>>> pose metaphysical questions. Asking 'where the material came from'
>>>> shows you fail to grasp the issue because all matter, energy, time and
>>>> space came into existence at that point of singularity. Scientists can
>>>> suggest the conditions of the Big Bang to milliseconds after the big
>>>> bang because the laws of physics prevail but science comes to a
>>>> shuddering halt at the point of singularity because the physical
>>>> universe with its laws do not exist. The cause of the universe must by
>>>> definition be non-physical, timeless, spaceless and personal. An
>>>> infinite creator mind fits the bill in a most wonderful way.
>>>
>>> You have no way of knowing that.
>>>
>> Basic logical inference, something that appears to allude you completely.
>
> Except that an infinite creator mind is impossible.
>

What evidence or logic do you have that shows such a concept is
logically contradictory? The fact that you don't want there to be a God
does not therefore make it a logical contradiction.

>>>>>> And it is clear from your admission above that your reason for
>>>>>> downgrading these scientific discoveries is not based on being in
>>>>>> possession any better or contrary evidence leading you to the conclusion
>>>>>> that the cosmologists have got it wrong, but rather that your gut
>>>>>> spiritual rejection of God prevents you from accepting the logical
>>>>>> implications such scientific discoveries present. It is clear to me
>>>>>> that this basic spiritual rejection of your maker is the engine that
>>>>>> drives your whole atheistic position.
>>>>>
>>>>> What drives my atheistic position is the total lack of anything
>>>>> that could be called spiritual.
>>>>
>>>>> There really is no God and no supernatural.
>>>>
>>>> You lay claim to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.
>>>
>>> Some good evidence from you would set me straight.
>>>
>> As you made the assertion, how about you providing some good evidence
>> that 'there really is no God and no supernatural' rather than deploying
>> the worn-out atheist diversionary tactic? So answer this question; As
>> you clearly are not in possession of all knowledge and all the evidence,
>> Just how do you know that there is no God and no supernatural?
>
> You make the claim. You must provide the evidence.
> If you were honest you would admit your God hypotheses
> is nothing but wishful thinking.
> You can believe whatever you like as long as you don't
> try to pass it off as fact.
>

Here are your words: "There really is no God and no supernatural." Now
provide the evidence for how you can know this. Readers will already
know you cannot possibly know these things. This is the basic flaw of
hard atheism; Atheists cannot say that God does not exist because they
are simply not in a position of all-knowledge as they cannot get outside
the universe or physical dimension to see what is beyond.

>>>>> That's why you can't provide any evidence.
>>>>> However I can and have provide much evidence for
>>>>> evolution and shown where more can be found.
>>>>> Much of it will be over your head but the are sites that explain
>>>>> evolution very clearly.
>>>>>
>>>> As I've said before, even if true, the theory of evolution is dependent
>>>> on the fine-tuning of the universe for evolution to even get going. The
>>>> fine-tuning of the universe undermines your claim that evolution
>>>> disproves God.
>>>
>>> So far all I have from you are unfounded assertions.
>>> I'd like to see the evidence on which your claims are based.
>>>
>> So far all I've had from you is evasion.
>
> Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?

Yes I do because in your self-proclaimed omniscience you already know
God does not exist, therefore according to you, there can be no evidence.

> Your claims are radical thus need radical evidence.
> You claim to know things nobody knows.
>
> Are you willing to explain where your ideas come from?
>

Logical inference based on special and general revelation by a mind that
has been transformed by Christ.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:27:18 +0100, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 15/05/2013 07:37, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:33:47 +0100, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 20:27, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 17:25:40 +0100, Steve Wilson
>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 11:16, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:36:23 +0100, Steve Wilson
>>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/05/2013 22:59, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:35:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
>>>>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/05/2013 10:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> No God, no need for God.

>By your evasion you clearly show you know nothing about the fine-tuning
>of the universe and the problem it poses for atheism.

You seem to have enough of your own problems.

>> If God is a form of life then life can exist without an ideal
>> universe.
>
>You think fine-tuning means and ideal universe?
>
>> Also consider that there may be other forms of
>> life that require totally different conditions.
>>
>Other forms of life in another universe?

Why not?

>If so that is mere speculation
>which does nothing to address the direct issue of the fine-tuning of
>*this* universe.

Your idea of God is mere speculation that does nothing to address
the direct issue of the fine-tuning *this* universe or anything else.

>>>> You seem quite sure of that so I presume you will be
>>>> providing evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are only three possibilities to explain the fine-tuning of the
>>> universe:
>>>
>>> 1. necessity
>>> 2. chance
>>> 3. design.
>>
>> I could add
>> 4. Something we don't know about
>> which seems most likely.
>>
>This is merely an escape route of the logically bankrupt atheist, the
>atheist version of 'God of the gaps'.

What about this then?

5. In the future humans develop amazing technology that is
capable of creating a universe. They travel back in time to

before time began. They then use the technology to create

the universe and life.
Now I have a logically coherent explanation thus no need to
dick around with God(s).

The knowledge and power to create the universe was innate
to the advanced humans and their technology. If there are any
problems with my theory I will just make something else up.

You may worship me in my humbleness if you wish.
It is your choice of course but if you do not worship
me I will create a hell just for you.

>>> However consider possibility 3. and it all falls into place very nicely.
>>
>> Will you consider possibility 4.?
>>
>No because there are only three logical alternatives to explain this
>scientific observation. Offering agnosticism is a cop-out because there
>is no credible atheist explanation yet design will not be countenanced
>due to baseless philosophical belief. It is why I said you are 'between
>a rock and a hard place'. By retreating into a 'convenient agnosticism'
>you have demonstrated the incoherence of atheism to explain a profound
>fact about the universe.

I like 5. because it explains everything.

>>>>>> How did an intelligent designer originate without intelligent design?
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is a stupid question. God is a necessary being. He has life in
>>>>> himself. He cannot not exist. He is the beginning-less cause of the
>>>>> universe.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very bold assertion. I'd like to see your evidence.
>>>>
>>> Would you be satisfied if I sent you a piece of God in a jar?
>>
>> I have come up with a way God could prove himself to everybody
>> in a way that would leave no doubt.

>> God is said to be everywhere at once so God could knock on every

>> door in the world at the same time. How could I deny God then?
>> What do you think? I have asked Gladys to put my idea to God
>> and I ask you to do the same.
>>
>What an idiot.

My idea would not work if you are a deist, but a Christian should
have no problem with it. In the Christian mythology God is said
to be everywhere so God would have no trouble knocking on
every door in the world at once, and the effect would be to
make everybody believe and Christianity would be the only
religion.
Of course your personal God may not be the God of the bible
in which case you are screwed.

>>> It must
>>> be obvious even to you that the cause of the universe cannot be part of
>>> the universe, but must be external to it, as something cannot bring
>>> itself into being out of nothing.
>>
>> As far as we know nothing comes from nothing but we don't know
>> what happened way back.
>> The cause of God can't be part of God, but must be external to it.
>>
>>> The cause must, by necessity, be
>>> non-physical, time-less, space-less and personal because it exercised
>>> volition. The only explanation is an unembodied mind that is
>>> unimaginably powerful.
>>
>> That doesn't sound like an explanation at all. Radical claims require
>> radical evidence.
>>
>Nothing radical about it. It has been the foundation of Western
>civilisation for centuries, and Australia too is built on Christian
>belief as evidenced by your assumption of a morality based on the
>intrinsic moral worth of humans.

You have some strange ideas and your mere speculation does
not carry any weight. I must insist on actual evidence.

>>>> You should feel free to present your evidence.
>>
>> I mean that.
>>
>You are ridiculous.

I really would welcome any evidence from you even if it makes
me look silly.

>> Except that an infinite creator mind is impossible.
>>
>What evidence or logic do you have that shows such a concept is
>logically contradictory? The fact that you don't want there to be a God
>does not therefore make it a logical contradiction.

Only one thing can be infinite.

>>>> Some good evidence from you would set me straight.
>>>>
>>> As you made the assertion, how about you providing some good evidence
>>> that 'there really is no God and no supernatural' rather than deploying
>>> the worn-out atheist diversionary tactic? So answer this question; As
>>> you clearly are not in possession of all knowledge and all the evidence,
>>> Just how do you know that there is no God and no supernatural?
>>
>> You make the claim. You must provide the evidence.
>> If you were honest you would admit your God hypotheses
>> is nothing but wishful thinking.

We call it mere speculation.

>> You can believe whatever you like as long as you don't
>> try to pass it off as fact.
>>
>
>Here are your words: "There really is no God and no supernatural."

Ah, like poetry.

>Now provide the evidence for how you can know this.

We know there is no God that is both almighty and good so that
rules out the Christian God, and we know all the supernatural
stuff is made up.

>Readers will already
>know you cannot possibly know these things. This is the basic flaw of
>hard atheism; Atheists cannot say that God does not exist because they
>are simply not in a position of all-knowledge as they cannot get outside
>the universe or physical dimension to see what is beyond.

Readers will know whatever you tell them to know.

>> Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?
>
>Yes I do because in your self-proclaimed omniscience you already know
>God does not exist, therefore according to you, there can be no evidence.

Think of the kudos if you actually came up with some convincing
evidence, like getting God to do the Ultimate Doorknock.

>> Your claims are radical thus need radical evidence.
>> You claim to know things nobody knows.
>>
>> Are you willing to explain where your ideas come from?
>>
>Logical inference based on special and general revelation by a mind that
>has been transformed by Christ.

Why are you not willing to explain where your ideas come from?

To sum up, I really need evidence from you, and you should think
about my 5. idea. It explains everything.

My Ultimate Doorknock idea is so exciting you should act on it
right away, unless of course your God is not the God of the bible.

>Steve Wilson

===========

I have come up with a way God could prove himself to everybody
in a way that would leave no doubt.

God is said to be everywhere at once so God could knock on every

[Steve Wilson]

Indeed, any old gibberish will suffice for you. However it makes you
into a fool.

> You may worship me in my humbleness if you wish.
> It is your choice of course but if you do not worship
> me I will create a hell just for you.
>

More incoherent gibberish. Even Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God
Delusion' acknowledges that atheism has no explanation for the
fine-tuning of the universe yet does not resort to your embarrassing
bluster.

>
> My idea would not work if you are a deist, but a Christian should
> have no problem with it. In the Christian mythology God is said
> to be everywhere so God would have no trouble knocking on
> every door in the world at once, and the effect would be to
> make everybody believe and Christianity would be the only
> religion.
> Of course your personal God may not be the God of the bible
> in which case you are screwed.
>

This is just a rehash of the old atheist demand for God to 'smite'
someone on demand. But because God doesn't dance to the atheists tune,
the atheist claims that God doesn't exist. What is more if God did
respond, you still wouldn't believe, you would rationalise it away
according to your naturalistic beliefs. You would most likely conclude
it was some unknown phenomenon that we do not as yet understand. As
Christ understood, miracles do not produce true faith. As it says
somewhere in the NT, the evidence for a transcendent Creator is around
us in creation and our existence. So no one is without excuse. Rather
the problem is that you are in rebellion against your maker; it is so
ingrained that is seems natural to you. You don't want to surrender
your autonomy and admit that you are accountable to God.

>>>> It must
>>>> be obvious even to you that the cause of the universe cannot be part of
>>>> the universe, but must be external to it, as something cannot bring
>>>> itself into being out of nothing.
>>>
>>> As far as we know nothing comes from nothing but we don't know
>>> what happened way back.
>>> The cause of God can't be part of God, but must be external to it.
>>>
>>>> The cause must, by necessity, be
>>>> non-physical, time-less, space-less and personal because it exercised
>>>> volition. The only explanation is an unembodied mind that is
>>>> unimaginably powerful.
>>>
>>> That doesn't sound like an explanation at all. Radical claims require
>>> radical evidence.
>>>
>> Nothing radical about it. It has been the foundation of Western
>> civilisation for centuries, and Australia too is built on Christian
>> belief as evidenced by your assumption of a morality based on the
>> intrinsic moral worth of humans.
>
> You have some strange ideas and your mere speculation does
> not carry any weight. I must insist on actual evidence.
>

So you deny that Western civilisation is historically based on
Christianity? You problem is that aspects of the Christian world-view
are so internalised in you, that you do not recognise it for what it is.
Not only that, you have absorbed it into you atheism. What irony that
atheists routinely assume that which can only be explained by Christian
theism.

>>>>> You should feel free to present your evidence.
>>>
>>> I mean that.
>>>
>> You are ridiculous.
>
> I really would welcome any evidence from you even if it makes
> me look silly.
>

You don't need me for that. You do an excellent job of making yourself
look silly, yet you seem oblivious to it. Even better is that you are a
good advert for that which you criticise, i.e. Christianity.

>>> Except that an infinite creator mind is impossible.
>>>
>> What evidence or logic do you have that shows such a concept is
>> logically contradictory? The fact that you don't want there to be a God
>> does not therefore make it a logical contradiction.
>
> Only one thing can be infinite.
>

Past experience tells me that when you come out with promising comment,
it never actually amounts to much.

>>>
>>
>> Here are your words: "There really is no God and no supernatural."
>
> Ah, like poetry.
>
>> Now provide the evidence for how you can know this.
>
> We know there is no God that is both almighty and good so that
> rules out the Christian God, and we know all the supernatural
> stuff is made up.
>

Here we go again! Round and round we go as if nothing has ever been
said. Only when you can prove that God can have no possible reason for
permitting evil to occur can you uphold this claim. It is a very heavy
burden of proof, which informed and intellectual atheists now
reluctantly concede. It is only low-grade village atheists who persist
with this defeated argument. The real issue is an emotional one; that
is, it is hard for us to deal with the reality of evil which God
permits. Yet however difficult for us, there is no logical
contradiction involved in God being both all-good and all-powerful and
Him allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose.

>> Readers will already
>> know you cannot possibly know these things. This is the basic flaw of
>> hard atheism; Atheists cannot say that God does not exist because they
>> are simply not in a position of all-knowledge as they cannot get outside
>> the universe or physical dimension to see what is beyond.
>
> Readers will know whatever you tell them to know.
>

It is blindingly obvious that you cannot defend you assertion as you
have a finite perspective and are not in possession of all knowledge.
Basically your comment is made from the position of blind faith in
naturalism not knowledge.

>>> Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?
>>
>> Yes I do because in your self-proclaimed omniscience you already know
>> God does not exist, therefore according to you, there can be no evidence.
>
> Think of the kudos if you actually came up with some convincing
> evidence, like getting God to do the Ultimate Doorknock.
>
>>> Your claims are radical thus need radical evidence.
>>> You claim to know things nobody knows.
>>>
>>> Are you willing to explain where your ideas come from?
>>>
>> Logical inference based on special and general revelation by a mind that
>> has been transformed by Christ.
>
> Why are you not willing to explain where your ideas come from?
>
> To sum up, I really need evidence from you, and you should think
> about my 5. idea. It explains everything.
>
> My Ultimate Doorknock idea is so exciting you should act on it
> right away, unless of course your God is not the God of the bible.
>

Yawn! You glory in your ignorance. All your idea shows is that you do
not understand what God is about.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:28:46 +0100, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 16/05/2013 06:42, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:27:18 +0100, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> What about this then?
>> 5. In the future humans develop amazing technology that is
>> capable of creating a universe. They travel back in time to
>> before time began. They then use the technology to create
>> the universe and life.
>> Now I have a logically coherent explanation thus no need to
>> dick around with God(s).
>>
>> The knowledge and power to create the universe was innate
>> to the advanced humans and their technology. If there are any
>> problems with my theory I will just make something else up.
>>
>Indeed, any old gibberish will suffice for you. However it makes you
>into a fool.

My gibberish, as you call it, has full explanatory power where
your God gibberish leaves many questions unanswered.

>> You may worship me in my humbleness if you wish.
>> It is your choice of course but if you do not worship
>> me I will create a hell just for you.
>>
>More incoherent gibberish.

No more so than Christian claims.

>Even Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God
>Delusion' acknowledges that atheism has no explanation for the
>fine-tuning of the universe yet does not resort to your embarrassing
>bluster.

I hope you bow your head in reverence when you write
'Richard Dawkins', for it is a name that strikes fear into
fundamentalists such as yourself.

>This is just a rehash of the old atheist demand for God to 'smite'
>someone on demand. But because God doesn't dance to the atheists tune,
>the atheist claims that God doesn't exist. What is more if God did
>respond, you still wouldn't believe, you would rationalise it away
>according to your naturalistic beliefs. You would most likely conclude
>it was some unknown phenomenon that we do not as yet understand. As
>Christ understood, miracles do not produce true faith. As it says
>somewhere in the NT, the evidence for a transcendent Creator is around
>us in creation and our existence. So no one is without excuse.

So its not that God couldn't do it, its that God is unwilling?
Can you not see from my POV unwilling sounds like unable?

>Rather
>the problem is that you are in rebellion against your maker; it is so
>ingrained that is seems natural to you. You don't want to surrender
>your autonomy and admit that you are accountable to God.

I don't want to be owned and I don't agree with slavery.
I do find Christian theology morally repugnant. The idea that
I can surrender my responsibility to someone else is
unacceptable.

>> You have some strange ideas and your mere speculation does
>> not carry any weight. I must insist on actual evidence.
>>
>So you deny that Western civilisation is historically based on
>Christianity? You problem is that aspects of the Christian world-view
>are so internalised in you, that you do not recognise it for what it is.
> Not only that, you have absorbed it into you atheism. What irony that
>atheists routinely assume that which can only be explained by Christian
>theism.

Rather it is that the few good aspects of Christianity come from
outside Christianity and Christianity has laid claim to them.
Christianity is made up of parts from earlier religions. That was
done to encourage people to convert. There are aspects of
Christianity that Christians should be ashamed of, such as
the idea that the death of an innocent man can absolve us
of responsibility, and that God creates us sick and orders
us to make ourselves well.

>> I really would welcome any evidence from you even if it makes
>> me look silly.
>>
>You don't need me for that. You do an excellent job of making yourself
>look silly, yet you seem oblivious to it.

I thought you were holding back strong evidence for fear of
embarrassing me.

>Even better is that you are a
>good advert for that which you criticise, i.e. Christianity.

You are not a good advert for Christianity.

>> Only one thing can be infinite.
>>
>Past experience tells me that when you come out with promising comment,
>it never actually amounts to much.

The Christian God is a physical and logical impossibility, plus
we know for sure that no deity exists which is both almighty
and good.

>> We know there is no God that is both almighty and good so that
>> rules out the Christian God, and we know all the supernatural
>> stuff is made up.
>>
>Here we go again! Round and round we go as if nothing has ever been
>said. Only when you can prove that God can have no possible reason for
>permitting evil to occur can you uphold this claim. It is a very heavy
>burden of proof, which informed and intellectual atheists now
>reluctantly concede. It is only low-grade village atheists who persist
>with this defeated argument. The real issue is an emotional one; that
>is, it is hard for us to deal with the reality of evil which God
>permits. Yet however difficult for us, there is no logical
>contradiction involved in God being both all-good and all-powerful and
>Him allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose.

If God is allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose
then he is not almighty.
Too easy. Have you got something challenging for me?

>It is blindingly obvious that you cannot defend you assertion as you
>have a finite perspective and are not in possession of all knowledge.
>Basically your comment is made from the position of blind faith in
>naturalism not knowledge.

I admit I do not have all knowledge, but I can make up stories
too, and my stories don't leave unanswered questions.

>>>> Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?
>>>
>>> Yes I do because in your self-proclaimed omniscience you already know
>>> God does not exist, therefore according to you, there can be no evidence.
>>
>> Think of the kudos if you actually came up with some convincing
>> evidence, like getting God to do the Ultimate Doorknock.

If you believe the bible you believe God is capable of doing
the Ultimate Doorknock and you know such a thing would
change the world for the better, so why are you not at least
trying to get God to cooperate?

>> To sum up, I really need evidence from you, and you should think
>> about my 5. idea. It explains everything.
>>
>> My Ultimate Doorknock idea is so exciting you should act on it
>> right away, unless of course your God is not the God of the bible.
>>
>Yawn! You glory in your ignorance. All your idea shows is that you do
>not understand what God is about.

An all-knowing and almighty ever existing God creates more
questions than it answers, but my suggestion explains everything.
We don't know where God came from or where it got its powers
but we do know that humans exist and that technology is advancing.
So, although both ideas are gibberish mine actually makes more
sense.

>Steve Wilson

==============
This sig intentionly left blank

[Steve Wilson]

So why was Richard Dawkins afraid to debate Prof William Lane Craig when
he visited England in 2011? Dawkins is on record as stating that he
confronts theistic nonsense wherever it appears. I think Dawkins has
fallen from his perch as the leader of the new atheism because many
atheists see him as someone who attacks caricatures of Christianity
rather than Christianity. I reckon you are a disciple of his, you
exhibit many of the same dismal traits.

>> This is just a rehash of the old atheist demand for God to 'smite'
>> someone on demand. But because God doesn't dance to the atheists tune,
>> the atheist claims that God doesn't exist. What is more if God did
>> respond, you still wouldn't believe, you would rationalise it away
>> according to your naturalistic beliefs. You would most likely conclude
>> it was some unknown phenomenon that we do not as yet understand. As
>> Christ understood, miracles do not produce true faith. As it says
>> somewhere in the NT, the evidence for a transcendent Creator is around
>> us in creation and our existence. So no one is without excuse.
>
> So its not that God couldn't do it, its that God is unwilling?
> Can you not see from my POV unwilling sounds like unable?
>

If you had any understanding of Christianity, you would know God's
purpose is to have a people who freely choose Him, not a people who are
forced to follow because they have no option. You always talk as if it
is this type of proof you want, a proof that forces your hand and makes
you confess God against your will because there is no option. Well that
is no how God works. The evidence for God is all around us, but if we
are so inclined, we can ignore it or explain it away. Only at the end
of time will everyone bow the knee before Christ, and this will include
yourself. While you have the opportunity, open you eyes and see that
God has made himself known in the created order and through Christ.

>> Rather
>> the problem is that you are in rebellion against your maker; it is so
>> ingrained that is seems natural to you. You don't want to surrender
>> your autonomy and admit that you are accountable to God.
>
> I don't want to be owned and I don't agree with slavery.
> I do find Christian theology morally repugnant. The idea that
> I can surrender my responsibility to someone else is
> unacceptable.
>

Yet I would guess you concede to your governments authority, the Police,
and if you have a job, your employer. God is the ultimate authority who
wants you to share, not just this life, but all eternity with him. Not
only that but whereas earthly authorities by nature are prone to making
mistakes, God always makes good on His promises. The joy of eternal
life with Christ is worth all the hardships of this life. Christians
see this life as a preparation for the next.

>>> You have some strange ideas and your mere speculation does
>>> not carry any weight. I must insist on actual evidence.
>>>
>> So you deny that Western civilisation is historically based on

>> Christianity? You[r] problem is that aspects of the Christian world-view

>> are so internalised in you, that you do not recognise it for what it is.
>> Not only that, you have absorbed it into you atheism. What irony that
>> atheists routinely assume that which can only be explained by Christian
>> theism.
>
> Rather it is that the few good aspects of Christianity come from
> outside Christianity and Christianity has laid claim to them.
> Christianity is made up of parts from earlier religions.

Trying to negate a position/belief by appealing to its origin is called
the 'genetic fallacy'. That is, it is logically erroneous attempting to
negate a belief by casting doubt on its origin rather than addressing
the coherency of the belief/position itself.

> That was
> done to encourage people to convert. There are aspects of
> Christianity that Christians should be ashamed of, such as
> the idea that the death of an innocent man can absolve us

> of responsibility,. . . .

If you knew what Christians believed then you would know that God took
his own righteous judgement upon himself in Christ (fully man and fully
God). The issue is not so much about responsibility, but rather that in
our spiritual alienation we are helpless. It took God in Christ to make
it possible for us to return to him in repentance. If anything it was
God solving the problem of his righteous justice by taking it upon
himself.



> . . . . and that God creates us sick and orders

> us to make ourselves well.
>

The 'sickness' is our species-wide rejection of God. Humans want to be
there own 'god' and as such we are highly disordered. And I think this
is an obvious fact about us humans, we are all disordered in one way or
another. None of us is 'normal' if by normal means 'that which we know
we could and should be'.

>>> I really would welcome any evidence from you even if it makes
>>> me look silly.
>>>
>> You don't need me for that. You do an excellent job of making yourself
>> look silly, yet you seem oblivious to it.
>
> I thought you were holding back strong evidence for fear of
> embarrassing me.
>

As I said, you don't need me for that.

>> Even better is that you are a
>> good advert for that which you criticise, i.e. Christianity.
>
> You are not a good advert for Christianity.
>
>>> Only one thing can be infinite.
>>>
>> Past experience tells me that when you come out with promising comment,
>> it never actually amounts to much.
>
> The Christian God is a physical and logical impossibility, plus
> we know for sure that no deity exists which is both almighty
> and good.
>

God is not a physical being, so I can agree with you on that. If God
created the space/time physical universe then it is obvious that the
cause has to be non-physical, time-less, space-less and have person-hood.

However it is nonsense to say God is a logical impossibility. It is
entirely logical to say that the infinite unembodied mind is the creator
of the universe. Your naturalistic beliefs may lead you to reject this
explanation out of hand, but it doesn't thereby make it a logical
impossibility. If you think it is illogical you had better demonstrate it.

>>> We know there is no God that is both almighty and good so that
>>> rules out the Christian God, and we know all the supernatural
>>> stuff is made up.
>>>
>> Here we go again! Round and round we go as if nothing has ever been
>> said. Only when you can prove that God can have no possible reason for
>> permitting evil to occur can you uphold this claim. It is a very heavy
>> burden of proof, which informed and intellectual atheists now
>> reluctantly concede. It is only low-grade village atheists who persist
>> with this defeated argument. The real issue is an emotional one; that
>> is, it is hard for us to deal with the reality of evil which God
>> permits. Yet however difficult for us, there is no logical
>> contradiction involved in God being both all-good and all-powerful and
>> Him allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose.
>
> If God is allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose
> then he is not almighty.
> Too easy. Have you got something challenging for me?
>

If it is so easy, explain how it logically follows that God cannot be
almighty on the basis of having an ultimate purpose in mind?

>> It is blindingly obvious that you cannot defend you assertion as you
>> have a finite perspective and are not in possession of all knowledge.
>> Basically your comment is made from the position of blind faith in
>> naturalism not knowledge.
>
> I admit I do not have all knowledge, but I can make up stories
> too, and my stories don't leave unanswered questions.
>

And yet you regularly make assertions about God which entail yourself
being omniscient. If a faint glimmer of understanding has entered your
mind, then you should retract this statement of yours;

"There really is no God and no supernatural." (Barry O'Grady)

Are you going to retract it?

>>>>> Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do because in your self-proclaimed omniscience you already know
>>>> God does not exist, therefore according to you, there can be no evidence.
>>>
>>> Think of the kudos if you actually came up with some convincing
>>> evidence, like getting God to do the Ultimate Doorknock.
>
> If you believe the bible you believe God is capable of doing
> the Ultimate Doorknock and you know such a thing would
> change the world for the better, so why are you not at least
> trying to get God to cooperate?
>

Again all this tells me is that you have no knowledge of God and how he
works. As your knowledge is so poor, what makes you think you are
qualified to criticise Christian belief? Like Dawkins, you attack your
own caricature of Christianity. Don't you ever wonder why Christians do
not take you seriously?

>>> To sum up, I really need evidence from you, and you should think
>>> about my 5. idea. It explains everything.
>>>
>>> My Ultimate Doorknock idea is so exciting you should act on it
>>> right away, unless of course your God is not the God of the bible.
>>>
>> Yawn! You glory in your ignorance. All your idea shows is that you do
>> not understand what God is about.
>
> An all-knowing and almighty ever existing God creates more
> questions than it answers, but my suggestion explains everything.

Actually, positing God does answer a lot of questions. It makes sense
of our humanity; our intrinsic moral worth, our moral free-will, our
capacity for logical thinking, our capacity for art, music, literature,
science and matematics. It gives us a coherent answer for the beginning
of the universe and its fine-tuning for life and it makes sense of the
uniformity of it too. Not only does God make sense of the fact that the
universe is regular and thus open to investigation but because of it,
scientists can predict the existence of things before they are even
discovered e.g the Higgs Boson, and other sub-atomic particles. There
is a deep faith at work in activity of science that the universe is
rational.

> We don't know where God came from or where it got its powers
> but we do know that humans exist and that technology is advancing.

An infinite regression of causes is a logical absurdity, so a first
cause must exist. That first cause must be either personal or
impersonal. It cannot be impersonal as an impersonal abstraction does
not have the volition to cause anything; the number 2 does not cause
anything. Therefore the first cause must be personal because a person
by definition has volition. That personal cause cannot be part of the
physical universe because the universe came into being and something
cannot come out of nothing, so that personal cause must be external to
the universe. Therefore that personal cause must be immaterial,
time-less and spaceless as these are all properties which came into
being with the universe. Therefore the cause of the universe is an
unembodied mind. So what is gibberish about this?


Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:18:08 +0100, Steve Wilson

You have never given me a reason to believe you.
Christianity by its very nature forces its adherents to be dishonest.

>>> This is just a rehash of the old atheist demand for God to 'smite'
>>> someone on demand. But because God doesn't dance to the atheists tune,
>>> the atheist claims that God doesn't exist. What is more if God did
>>> respond, you still wouldn't believe, you would rationalise it away
>>> according to your naturalistic beliefs. You would most likely conclude
>>> it was some unknown phenomenon that we do not as yet understand. As
>>> Christ understood, miracles do not produce true faith. As it says
>>> somewhere in the NT, the evidence for a transcendent Creator is around
>>> us in creation and our existence. So no one is without excuse.
>>
>> So its not that God couldn't do it, its that God is unwilling?
>> Can you not see from my POV unwilling sounds like unable?
>>
>If you had any understanding of Christianity, you would know God's
>purpose is to have a people who freely choose Him, not a people who are
>forced to follow because they have no option.

What about those who are unable to choose God because they
know it does not exist?

>You always talk as if it
>is this type of proof you want, a proof that forces your hand and makes
>you confess God against your will because there is no option. Well that
>is no how God works. The evidence for God is all around us, but if we
>are so inclined, we can ignore it or explain it away. Only at the end
>of time will everyone bow the knee before Christ, and this will include
>yourself. While you have the opportunity, open you eyes and see that
>God has made himself known in the created order and through Christ.

I find that sort of operation morally repugnant.
The way for us to be free to choose would be for God to make
himself known to all in an unambiguous and non-threatening way.
God would need to make it very clear that he would give us all
a good life regardless of whether we follow him or not.
Politicians work for everybody without regard to whom they
voted so why can't God?

Don't try to bring free will into it because it is obvious God does
not respect our free will.

>>> Rather
>>> the problem is that you are in rebellion against your maker; it is so
>>> ingrained that is seems natural to you. You don't want to surrender
>>> your autonomy and admit that you are accountable to God.
>>
>> I don't want to be owned and I don't agree with slavery.
>> I do find Christian theology morally repugnant. The idea that
>> I can surrender my responsibility to someone else is
>> unacceptable.
>>
>Yet I would guess you concede to your governments authority, the Police,
>and if you have a job, your employer. God is the ultimate authority who
>wants you to share, not just this life, but all eternity with him.

If God is almighty he will have his wish and nothing we can do
could change that.

>Not only that but whereas earthly authorities by nature are prone to making
>mistakes, God always makes good on His promises.

That's not quite true, is it? God repented several times, and his
attempt to correct his errors with a global flood was a complete
failure. Now it seems God has given up.

>The joy of eternal
>life with Christ is worth all the hardships of this life. Christians
>see this life as a preparation for the next.

Christians are idiots if they see the evil and corrupt God as proof
that God will somehow change for the better after they die.
If you had any understanding of biology you would know that
everything that makes 'you' is contained in your brain. Your
whole way of thinking could change due to brain damage,
chemical imbalance, or aging. When brain activity stops
'you' cease to exist. There is no 'you' to go anywhere.
The concept of life after death controlled by an evil God
was created to stop badly beaten slaves from committing
suicide.

>>>> You have some strange ideas and your mere speculation does
>>>> not carry any weight. I must insist on actual evidence.
>>>>
>>> So you deny that Western civilisation is historically based on
>>> Christianity? You[r] problem is that aspects of the Christian world-view
>>> are so internalised in you, that you do not recognise it for what it is.
>>> Not only that, you have absorbed it into you atheism. What irony that
>>> atheists routinely assume that which can only be explained by Christian
>>> theism.
>>
>> Rather it is that the few good aspects of Christianity come from
>> outside Christianity and Christianity has laid claim to them.
>> Christianity is made up of parts from earlier religions.
>
>Trying to negate a position/belief by appealing to its origin is called
>the 'genetic fallacy'. That is, it is logically erroneous attempting to
>negate a belief by casting doubt on its origin rather than addressing
>the coherency of the belief/position itself.

I don't play by your rules.
Christianity is plagiarism.

>> That was
>> done to encourage people to convert. There are aspects of
>> Christianity that Christians should be ashamed of, such as
>> the idea that the death of an innocent man can absolve us
>> of responsibility,. . . .
>
>If you knew what Christians believed then you would know that God took
>his own righteous judgement upon himself in Christ (fully man and fully
>God). The issue is not so much about responsibility, but rather that in
>our spiritual alienation we are helpless. It took God in Christ to make
>it possible for us to return to him in repentance. If anything it was
>God solving the problem of his righteous justice by taking it upon
>himself.

Was that the only way almighty God could have done it?
God allegedly spoke the universe into existence, so why
didn't God say, "unmerited and unforgivable curse of
mine be gone" and in so doing solve all the problems
God causes us? Some people have selective deafness.
Perhaps God has selective almightiness. Or might it be
you have the remote control and only allow God to do
what you approve of?

>> . . . . and that God creates us sick and orders
>> us to make ourselves well.
>>
>The 'sickness' is our species-wide rejection of God. Humans want to be
>there own 'god' and as such we are highly disordered. And I think this
>is an obvious fact about us humans, we are all disordered in one way or
>another. None of us is 'normal' if by normal means 'that which we know
>we could and should be'.

Seems God is incapable of making himself lovable and is unaware
that love can't be commanded.

>>>> I really would welcome any evidence from you even if it makes
>>>> me look silly.
>>>>
>>> You don't need me for that. You do an excellent job of making yourself
>>> look silly, yet you seem oblivious to it.
>>
>> I thought you were holding back strong evidence for fear of
>> embarrassing me.
>>
>As I said, you don't need me for that.

If you are not holding back it must be that you really don't have
any evidence.

>> The Christian God is a physical and logical impossibility, plus
>> we know for sure that no deity exists which is both almighty
>> and good.
>>
>God is not a physical being, so I can agree with you on that. If God
>created the space/time physical universe then it is obvious that the
>cause has to be non-physical, time-less, space-less and have person-hood.

Its not that obvious. You might like to explain your, umm, reasoning.

>However it is nonsense to say God is a logical impossibility. It is
>entirely logical to say that the infinite unembodied mind is the creator
>of the universe. Your naturalistic beliefs may lead you to reject this
>explanation out of hand, but it doesn't thereby make it a logical
>impossibility. If you think it is illogical you had better demonstrate it.

Such a being would need to make a mockery of the laws of
physics.

>>>> We know there is no God that is both almighty and good so that
>>>> rules out the Christian God, and we know all the supernatural
>>>> stuff is made up.
>>>>
>>> Here we go again! Round and round we go as if nothing has ever been
>>> said. Only when you can prove that God can have no possible reason for
>>> permitting evil to occur can you uphold this claim. It is a very heavy
>>> burden of proof, which informed and intellectual atheists now
>>> reluctantly concede. It is only low-grade village atheists who persist
>>> with this defeated argument. The real issue is an emotional one; that
>>> is, it is hard for us to deal with the reality of evil which God
>>> permits. Yet however difficult for us, there is no logical
>>> contradiction involved in God being both all-good and all-powerful and
>>> Him allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose.
>>
>> If God is allowing evil to exist to some greater good purpose
>> then he is not almighty.
>> Too easy. Have you got something challenging for me?
>>
>If it is so easy, explain how it logically follows that God cannot be
>almighty on the basis of having an ultimate purpose in mind?

OK. It goes like this,
If God is required to allow evil to exist to some greater good

purpose then he is not almighty.

>>> It is blindingly obvious that you cannot defend you assertion as you
>>> have a finite perspective and are not in possession of all knowledge.
>>> Basically your comment is made from the position of blind faith in
>>> naturalism not knowledge.
>>
>> I admit I do not have all knowledge, but I can make up stories
>> too, and my stories don't leave unanswered questions.
>>
>And yet you regularly make assertions about God which entail yourself
>being omniscient. If a faint glimmer of understanding has entered your
>mind, then you should retract this statement of yours;
>
>"There really is no God and no supernatural." (Barry O'Grady)
>
>Are you going to retract it?

I'm too honest to do that.
Your Christianity prevents you from being honest.

>>>>>> Do you think I am being unreasonable by asking for evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I do because in your self-proclaimed omniscience you already know
>>>>> God does not exist, therefore according to you, there can be no evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Think of the kudos if you actually came up with some convincing
>>>> evidence, like getting God to do the Ultimate Doorknock.
>>
>> If you believe the bible you believe God is capable of doing
>> the Ultimate Doorknock and you know such a thing would
>> change the world for the better, so why are you not at least
>> trying to get God to cooperate?
>>
>Again all this tells me is that you have no knowledge of God and how he
>works. As your knowledge is so poor, what makes you think you are
>qualified to criticise Christian belief?

My understanding of the Christian mythology is that God is
omnipresent and almighty which would mean God could do
the Ultimate Doorknock standing on his head, if he chose to
do it that way. Who are you to say God should not do
something so wonderful?

>Like Dawkins, you attack your
>own caricature of Christianity. Don't you ever wonder why Christians do
>not take you seriously?

What I am seeing of you is a person who talks big but is lacking in
confidence. The reason you won't even try to get God to do something
that would benefit everyone is that you know God does not exist.
Don't bother to protest because I know you dare not admit it.
The funny thing is that if God did exist it would know you have no
faith.

>>>> To sum up, I really need evidence from you, and you should think
>>>> about my 5. idea. It explains everything.
>>>>
>>>> My Ultimate Doorknock idea is so exciting you should act on it
>>>> right away, unless of course your God is not the God of the bible.
>>>>
>>> Yawn! You glory in your ignorance. All your idea shows is that you do
>>> not understand what God is about.
>>
>> An all-knowing and almighty ever existing God creates more
>> questions than it answers, but my suggestion explains everything.
>
>Actually, positing God does answer a lot of questions.

And adds a lot more.

>It makes sense
>of our humanity; our intrinsic moral worth, our moral free-will, our
>capacity for logical thinking, our capacity for art, music, literature,
>science and matematics.

Only in the sense that we react against the Christian God concept.

>It gives us a coherent answer for the beginning
>of the universe and its fine-tuning for life and it makes sense of the
>uniformity of it too. Not only does God make sense of the fact that the
>universe is regular and thus open to investigation but because of it,
>scientists can predict the existence of things before they are even
>discovered e.g the Higgs Boson, and other sub-atomic particles. There
>is a deep faith at work in activity of science that the universe is
>rational.

Your story leaves open questions like, where did God come from,
where does it get its ideas from, where does its magic powers
come from, why is God completely undetectable. In my story we
now where the humans came from and how they got the ability
to create.
My gibberish makes far more sense than your gibberish.

>> We don't know where God came from or where it got its powers
>> but we do know that humans exist and that technology is advancing.
>
>An infinite regression of causes is a logical absurdity, so a first
>cause must exist.

A first cause is a logical absurdity, and who is to say that in future
we won't develop time travel?

>That first cause must be either personal or
>impersonal. It cannot be impersonal as an impersonal abstraction does
>not have the volition to cause anything; the number 2 does not cause
>anything. Therefore the first cause must be personal because a person
>by definition has volition. That personal cause cannot be part of the
>physical universe because the universe came into being and something
>cannot come out of nothing, so that personal cause must be external to
>the universe. Therefore that personal cause must be immaterial,
>time-less and spaceless as these are all properties which came into
>being with the universe. Therefore the cause of the universe is an
>unembodied mind. So what is gibberish about this?

Its all made up nonsense. You believe it because you have been
programmed.

I am honest enough to admit I don't know how or even if it all
got started. Can you be that honest?