Let's Get This Straight. OK?
All-seeing-I
God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
the first place.
But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
time either.
Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
God.
But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
non-existent sound frequencies
You have now made an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
Where is your evidence there is no God?
--
The All Seeing I
John Harshman
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
What eyewitness accounts? What textual evidence? What makes you think
any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
And god created science? I think you're very confused about that.
Science can study god, if and only if god can be defined well enough so
that his existence or lack thereof has empirical consequences. Without
such consequences he might exist, but we couldn't tell.
> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> time either.
You mean frequencies we didn't know about. Bad way to say it. But just
because some things were unknown doesn't mean anything at all is
possible. You can't milk that one trope forever.
> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> God.
>
> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
Name one person who has said this.
> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
>
> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Why is that an extraordinary claim? It seems to me that god is more
extraordinary than no god. Anyway, the evidence isn't that there is no
god, which is impossible to show. Merely that there is no god of the
sort claimed by most religions, and particularly of the sort claimed by
creationists.
Dave Oldridge
9f6ed5...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>the first place.
When you develop a sceientific test for God's existence, do let us know.
You'll be famous! In the meantime, those of us who know where science
ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
>But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>time either.
>
>Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>God.
>
>But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
Few scientists actually make this claim.
>
>You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>non-existent sound frequencies
>
>You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
>Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
>Where is your evidence there is no God?
Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
Immaculate Conception.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Boikat
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science.
One cannot disprove the existence of God, gods, or the spiritual
realm. At the same time, there is no way to test *for* the existence
of God, gods, or the spiritual realm, therefore, it *is* irrelevent.
> This
> despite eyewitness accounts,
How do you know they are being truthful or acurate, or simply did not
misinterpret a natural phenomena that they did not understand?
> textual evidence
Irrelevent without externa verification, plus, how do you know the
accounts are accurate?
> and other anecdotal data
"Anecdotal data" fals to the smae weaknesses as your above claimed
"evidence". It's unverifiable and untestable.
> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
Says who?
>
> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> time either.
But they can be tested.
>
> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> God.
Good. When you build your God Detector let everyone know.
>
> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
I believe most say, since we cannot test for God, God is irrelevent to
science.
> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
Be sure to let everyone know when you complete your "God Tester".
Until then, you are making unsupported claims.
>
> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
Wow. This is almost word for word the same BS that you posted in
another thread. You must think you have something here. Well, my
rebutal to your idiocy will most likely be word for word the same in
this post.
Claiming that an unevidenced God, gods, or anything supernatural, is
irrelevent to scienc is not an extraordinary claim.
>
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
Good. Where is your evidence that God, gods or the supernatural
actually exist? Your earlier claims of evidence in the form of
"eyewitness acccounts, ancient texts, and anecdotal" evidence does not
cut it, since there is no way to independantly verify that the claims
are not lies, stories, misunderstood natural phenomena, and so on.
Also, arguments of incredulity, ignorance, authority, and the other
logical fallacies you are so fond of, don't cut it either.
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Again, you cannot prove a negative of this nature. Again, your
problem is that you think that not being able to prove -X is evidence
of the existence of X. Sorry, it does not work that way. But you are
too slow witted to understand that
>
> --
> The All Seeing I(diot)
As before, I corrected your sig. No problems.
Boikat
JohnN
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
>
> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> time either.
>
> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> God.
>
> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
Science can test for the effects of god(s). If a deity has an effect
on the natural world then it can be measured. Prayer is one of those
claims that Christians make about their God. They claim that their
God responses to prayer and alters the natural world to answer those
prayers. There have been scientific studies of the effectiveness of
prayer and prayer, and thus God, has been wanting.
>
> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
>
> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
The claim has always been there is no evidence for the existence of
any god. You know that.
>
> --
> The All Seeing I
You are a silly person.
JohnN
heekster
THAT would be YOU.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Which one?
There are tens of thousands of them.
Islam accepts the Jewish God but denies the most common Christian versions.
There are several common versions of the christian god.
I'll tell you what. You provide evidence that Doc Savage does not exist
(Read Philip Jose Farmer's excellent biography first) and tehn tell me which
god you want evidence of no existance for.
I'll gert back to you.
Iain
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist
Who? When? Name one such occasion, just one.
> or, that God does not apply to science.
God has not been found by science. That is all.
> This
> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does;
The evidence begins and ends there with those biblical descriptions.
They don't go anywhere. There's nothing to be done with them.
There are modern eyewitness accounts of people walking on water. But
what about them? What should we do with them? Put them in the oven and
bake them for forty-five minutes? Such rumours are cheap and chips.
They were cheap as chips in the bible, and its they're cheap as chips
now.
> And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
This is a nonsensical statement, and should be thought a nonsensical
statement even by someone to whom the existence of god is already
plain.
Science is a method of aquiring knowledge, which first fully and
formally established by European humans, not gods.
> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> time either.
And what this has to do with the rest of your point -- sorry -- post,
you've not made at all clear.
> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> God.
So gods are currently undetectable, yet you make positivate assertions
about then? And then dare to call others arrogant?
> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
Point to one poster that has made this claim, just one.
> You do this
No.
> with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural
Adverbial phrase belongs to above-refuted falsehood.
>---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
No, nobody ever asserted that any frequencies didn't exist, neither
before nor after their initial discovery.
> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
Where?
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
What claim?
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
There are some definitions of gods which render gods logically
impossible. But you can find those argument yourself. I won't repat
them here.
The truly pertinent question would be:
Where is your evidence that the idea of gods should even be mooted in
the first place?
--Iain
Nomen Publicus
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science.
No.
> This
> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does;
As demonstrated by?
> And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
As demonstrated by?
>
> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> time either.
All sound frequencies always existed, recently humans have discovered how
to perceive them using technology where our ears cannot.
>
> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> God.
But we now have tools to observe most of the electromagnetic spectrum.
>
> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
The problem lies in what observable part of god exists?
>
> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
A poor analogy. Sounds outside the hearing range of humans are simple to
predict and then test for. What characteristics of your god are measurable?
>
> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
No.
>
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
True.
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Where is your evidence that fairies, trolls and monsters under the bed do
not exist.
Your question is too important to play trivial logic games with. Propose a
test for your god.
>
> --
> The All Seeing I
>
--
What's God? Well, you know, when you want something really bad and
you close your eyes and you wish for it? God's the guy that ignores you.
-- Steve Buscemi (From the movie 'The Island')
Devils Advocaat
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
Studies have shown how unreliable eyewitnesses can be, what makes
eyewitness accounts unreliable is the older eyewitnesses are, the more
certain of themselves they are, even when they are not remembering
things as they actually happened.
If I recall correctly you have asserted that "textual evidence" is
based on physical evidence, but so far no one who declares that God
exists has been able to present any physical evidence for God's
existence.
And as I have said many times before "anecdotal evidence" is at best
unreliable being based as it is on hearsay and not fact.
Finally a question for you, what evidence do you have that God
invented science?
Nashton
> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>> the first place.
>
> What eyewitness accounts?
What eyewitness accounts?
What textual evidence?
What textual evidence? The best we have that can be qualified as textual
evidence is something called Scripture.
What makes you think
> any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
What makes you think that "science", which is nothing but an endeavor of
humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
complete and if most things were known and predictable.
As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote ideologies.
>
> And god created science? I think you're very confused about that.
If God created Man, then by extension, he created anything man is
involved in.
>
> Science can study god, if and only if god can be defined well enough so
> that his existence or lack thereof has empirical consequences. Without
> such consequences he might exist, but we couldn't tell.
So what exactly would you need, John? Weekly updates on CNN?
>
>> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>> time either.
>
> You mean frequencies we didn't know about. Bad way to say it. But just
> because some things were unknown doesn't mean anything at all is
> possible. You can't milk that one trope forever.
In the Universe anything at all *Is* not only possible, it's probable.
>
>> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>> God.
>>
>> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> Name one person who has said this.
Go to Google groups, enter: God, evidence, existence and see what you
can get.
>
>> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>> non-existent sound frequencies
>>
>> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>>
>> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>>
>> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> Why is that an extraordinary claim? It seems to me that god is more
> extraordinary than no god.
What are you talking about and where is the sense or logic in what you said?
Anyway, the evidence isn't that there is no
> god, which is impossible to show. Merely that there is no god of the
> sort claimed by most religions, and particularly of the sort claimed by
> creationists.
And what kind of God do you "believe" exists and why is he better than
"mine" and what the frig are you mumbling about there?
>
Nashton
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
> 9f6ed5...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>> the first place.
>
> When you develop a sceientific test for God's existence, do let us know.
> You'll be famous! In the meantime, those of us who know where science
> ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
There is no test for God's existence you uneducated cretin.
The existence of God and the acceptance of his existence is in a sphere
of knowledge above that of empirical science in the realm of philosophy,
It's a great subject you really ought to familiarize yourself with it
because science, as we know it today, is being transformed by
philosophy, especially in the physical sciences.
>
>> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>> time either.
>>
>> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>> God.
>>
>> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> Few scientists actually make this claim.
>> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>> non-existent sound frequencies
>>
>> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>>
>> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>>
>> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
> Immaculate Conception.
Of course, any idiot that doesn't know the first thing about one of the
most extraordinary achievements of mankind, i.e. philosophy, can post
any idiocy/one liner they desire on the Usenet.
>
>
Ye Old One
>Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>the first place.
>
>But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>time either.
Wrong.
>
>Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>God.
Wrong.
>
>But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
Nononononono! You cannot provide EVIDENCE for gods. And that, dimwit,
is YOUR problem not ours.
>
>You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>non-existent sound frequencies
The sound frequencies were always there, we knew they existed because
it was a logical and scientific extension of the frequencies we could
hear. It was the creationists that claimed they were supernatural and
the work of demons.
>
>You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
>Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
And you have none.
>
>Where is your evidence there is no God?
Find one single shred of evidence he exists and we will look at it. Be
warned though, far better men than you have tried - and FAILED.
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).
VoiceOfReason
You're confusing science with atheism. They are not the same thing,
nor does one require the other.
Science cannot detect God, so God is not part of science. That is the
same whether the person doing the science is theist or atheist.
Science cannot disprove God. Anyone saying it can understands little
about science.
VoiceOfReason
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
> 9f6ed5...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> >God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> >despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> >that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> >the first place.
>
> When you develop a sceientific test for God's existence, do let us know.
> You'll be famous! In the meantime, those of us who know where science
> ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
Quite a number of Christians I know (including me) raise their
eyebrows whenever they hear someone claim they have found "scientific
evidence" for God. Oh really? And what happened to your faith that
you think you need such evidence?
> >But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> >time either.
> >
> >Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> >man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> >until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> >God.
> >
> >But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> >"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> Few scientists actually make this claim.
Actually if any scientist DID make that claim I'd question their
competence.
<...>
Burkhard
I sort of agree with AS1 on this, at least if you take his post as a
reductio ad absurdum argument against the frequent use of this
particular cliche on TO to allocate burdens of proof. I always
thought it was pretty trite and ultimately meaningless. You are of
course right too, and that is the problem with this criteria: while it
describes correctly an aspect of belief revision, what is revised are
essentially prior probabilities. So as an allocation of proof
criteria, it simply begs the question. What will be extraordinary for
one will be "self-evident" for the other and vice versa.
The criteria: "the party that has the easier proof ought to prove" is
much better, and in my view correctly allocates burden of proof in
most cases to the party that makes an existential statement of the
form 'There is an X" - but this is a different criteria from the
"extraordinary etc" one
Jim
> John Harshman wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> >> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> >> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> >> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> >> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> >> the first place.
>
> > What eyewitness accounts?
>
> What eyewitness accounts?
>
> � What textual evidence?
>
> What textual evidence? The best we have that can be qualified as textual
> evidence is something called Scripture.
>
> � What makes you think
>
> > any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>
> What makes you think that "science", which is nothing but an endeavor of
> humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
> possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
> complete and if most things were known and predictable.
>
> As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
> the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote ideologies.
>
>
Sorry, but this last is so unbelievably silly that I cannot help but
comment. If indeed you believe that 'little has changed in our state
of knowledge' in the 1600 years since Scripture was canonized, simply
consider surgery without anesthesia. I also note that within the last
couple of months we discovered an Earth-sized extra-solar planet with
water in the atmosphere (GJ1214b; see Nature 462, 853-854 (17 December
2009)). Consider the knowledge necessary to construct the technology
required to do this. Consider the understanding of nature required to
determine atmospheric composition of a planet 42 light years away.
Or consider the 50,000 Filipinos who won't be buried in ash when Mayon
volcano goes blooey because of what we know about predicting volcanic
eruptions (for other examples of this, look at the eruption of Rabaul
about ten years back - two deaths out of thousands saved because of
adequate warning of an impending eruption). Then compare this to the
state of knowledge in the later Roman Empire, for example. Then shut
up.
Dan Listermann
>
> What makes you think that "science", which is nothing but an endeavor of
> humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
> possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
> complete and if most things were known and predictable.
>
>
What makes you think that the mumblings of bronze age goatherds is more
reliable than the repeatable observations and predictions of science?
.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Such nonsense. This is the problem with science today. It has become
bloated with self importance and corrupt.
Those Filipinos you mention have evacuated 3x's and now the
government cannot get them to leave for 4th time because of false
warnings. What good is a warning when it is false? It was not until
the people saw the lava trickling out that they began to evacuate. And
this is in the Pacific ''Ring of Fire,'' where volcanic activity and
earthquakes are common. What would the predictions be like elsewhere,
where volcano's are not common?
The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
modern structure in America. Why is that?
Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
could build a pyramid.
Yeah. We have come a long Long LONG way; haven't we?
Here is a clue. As long as you remove God from any of the scientific
endeavors man seeks, then the findings will be incomplete or useless.
What practical purpose does it serve to spend so much money to find a
planet with water on it but the thing is so far away that we have no
means to travel to it? All the while we need solutions on earth to so
many of mankind's problems. The motivation for finding such planets is
to suggest that God did not create life but rather life just
spontaneously arose from lifeless matter.
Compare this to a science that assumed God exists first, followed his
suggestions that we look out for one another, and would be seeking for
all of the solutions we need on earth instead of useless planets we
cannot travel to.
Then shut up.
Boikat
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
>
> >> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> >> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> >> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> >> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> >> the first place.
>
> > When you develop a sceientific test for God's existence, do let us know. �
> > You'll be famous! �In the meantime, those of us who know where science
> > ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
>
> There is no test for God's existence you uneducated cretin.
That's what he said, you ignorant anti-science activist,
> The existence of God and the acceptance of his existence is in a sphere
> of knowledge above that of empirical science in the realm of philosophy,
So are invisible magical seven foot tall purple and yellow fruit
bats. Does that make them real?
>
> It's a great subject you really ought to familiarize yourself with it
> because science, as we know it today, is being transformed by
> philosophy, especially in the physical sciences.
Not in the direction you want, however.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> >> time either.
>
> >> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> >> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> >> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> >> God.
>
> >> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> >> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> > Few scientists actually make this claim.
> >> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> >> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> >> non-existent sound frequencies
>
> >> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> >> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> >> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> > Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
> > Immaculate Conception.
>
> Of course, any idiot that doesn't know the first thing about one of the
> most extraordinary achievements of mankind, i.e. philosophy, can post
> any idiocy/one liner they desire on the Usenet.
ASS-I(Diot) does it all the time. And here you are, defending his
inanities (Not his right to do so, but the inanities themselves)
Grow up.
Boikat
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
All-seeing-I
wrote:> 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> >God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> >despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> >that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> >the first place.
>
> When you develop a sceientific test for God's existence, do let us know. �
> You'll be famous! �In the meantime, those of us who know where science
> ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
Well. If you take "God" on faith, why don't you take what God has
given man as information regarding mankind's origins on faith as
well?
> >But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> >time either.
>
> >Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> >man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> >until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> >God.
>
> >But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> >"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> Few scientists actually make this claim.
Then we have few scientists that post to talk.Origins. Only wannabe
God haters that feel it is an extraordinary claim that creationist
make when saying: God exists.
> >You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> >that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> >non-existent sound frequencies
>
> >You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> >Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> >Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
> Immaculate Conception.
A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end equals a
valid claim of a supernatural life.
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> > God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> > despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> > that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> > the first place.
>
> > But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> > time either.
>
> > Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
> > man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> > until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> > God.
>
> > But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> > "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> > You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> > that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> > non-existent sound frequencies
>
> > You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> > Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> > Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> You're confusing science with atheism. �They are not the same thing,
> nor does one require the other.
Not really. But I can understand why you say that. Science of today,
specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read this board
daily but not see that is turning a blind eye.
>
> Science cannot detect God, so God is not part of science. �That is the
> same whether the person doing the science is theist or atheist.
>
> Science cannot disprove God. �Anyone saying it can understands little
> about science.- Hide quoted text -
Good. Because that was not my point. My point is many claim there is
no God because there is no scientific evidence for God. Which is quite
an extraordinary claim to make in the light that science discoverers
new data and new testing methods every day.
Science may say "We do not know that God exists because we have no
means to test for God". But the atheists says "God does not exist
because science says it cannot test for God". Similar statements but
with two very different meanings.
It would behoove science and it's reputation in front of the general
public to separate itself from such remarks. If it does not, the
outcome will be a lack of trust and faith in science. Which we see
happening today.
Boikat
Bullshit, you ignorant twit.
<snip remaining idiocy>
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> thought it was pretty trite and ultimately meaningless. �ｿｽ �ｿｽYou are of
> course right too, and that is the problem with this criteria: while it
> describes correctly an aspect of belief revision, what is revised are
> essentially prior probabilities. So as an allocation of proof
> criteria, it simply begs the question. What will be extraordinary for
> one will be "self-evident" for the other and vice versa.
>
> much better, and in my view correctly allocates burden of proof in
> form 'There is an X" �ｿｽ- but this is a different criteria from the
> "extraordinary etc" one
>
> Anyway, the evidence isn't that there is no god, which is impossible to show. Merely that there is no god of the
> sort claimed by most religions, and particularly of the sort claimed by creationists.
You were doing pretty good until the end. Then the typical bias came
out.
If textual evidences were accepted then the God creationists mention
is the same exact God in most religions.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>>> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>>> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>>> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> What eyewitness accounts?
>
> What eyewitness accounts?
>
> What textual evidence?
>
> What textual evidence? The best we have that can be qualified as textual
> evidence is something called Scripture.
That's a claim, yes. But what evidence do you have that any of it is an
eyewitness account, or that it's any more evidence of anything being
discussed here than Harry Potter is evidence of Hogwarts? (There are
bits of history in the bible, and I don't deny that; just much less than
you imagine.)
>> What makes you think
>> any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>
> What makes you think that "science", which is nothing but an endeavor of
> humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
> possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
> complete and if most things were known and predictable.
Why, science works. We have a method in science of telling true from
false, and it's quite effective in deriving a reliable, conservative
estimate of the world. We don't know everything, but we do know some
things.
> As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
> the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote ideologies.
I'm not sure what you mean by "little has changed". We know a lot more
than we knew a hundred years ago, or even ten. The best thing science
can do is tell us about the world.
>> And god created science? I think you're very confused about that.
>
> If God created Man, then by extension, he created anything man is
> involved in.
An interesting argument. But if god created it, wasn't it therefore
good? So why do you complain? Did god create nerve gas, by the way?
Thermonuclear bombs? Child rape?
>> Science can study god, if and only if god can be defined well enough
>> so that his existence or lack thereof has empirical consequences.
>> Without such consequences he might exist, but we couldn't tell.
>
> So what exactly would you need, John? Weekly updates on CNN?
I would like you to propose a testable hypothesis about god. Go ahead.
>>> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>>> time either.
>>
>> You mean frequencies we didn't know about. Bad way to say it. But just
>> because some things were unknown doesn't mean anything at all is
>> possible. You can't milk that one trope forever.
>
> In the Universe anything at all *Is* not only possible, it's probable.
Not true. It's impossible that gravity will suddenly reverse sign and
make everything fall up, for example. Only things that are possible can
be probable.
>>> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>>> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>>> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>>> God.
>>>
>>> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>>> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>>
>> Name one person who has said this.
>
> Go to Google groups, enter: God, evidence, existence and see what you
> can get.
I got 32,400 hits. Too many to wade through. But the first page of
results has no such claim. Again: name one person who has said this.
>>> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>>> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>>> non-existent sound frequencies
>>>
>>> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>>>
>>> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>>>
>>> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> Why is that an extraordinary claim? It seems to me that god is more
>> extraordinary than no god.
>
> What are you talking about and where is the sense or logic in what you
> said?
I was merely disputing your claim. I think that the existence of god is
a more extraordinary claim than the nonexistence of god. Purely an
expressed opinion at this point.
>> Anyway, the evidence isn't that there is no
>> god, which is impossible to show. Merely that there is no god of the
>> sort claimed by most religions, and particularly of the sort claimed
>> by creationists.
>
> And what kind of God do you "believe" exists and why is he better than
> "mine" and what the frig are you mumbling about there?
I don't believe any kind exists. However, it's impossible to know that
some kinds don't exist; a god who has no influence on the world is
untestable. I'm not sure about what *your* god is, exactly. You could
tell me if you liked. But if he resembles any of the sorts usually
promoted by religions, I don't think he exists, and there is good
evidence to that effect, which we could discuss if you really want to.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You cannot address my point, so like a child, you take your little
blunt scissors and cut it out.
Boikat
The only "point" there was you usual ignorant bullshit. Besides,
after your ignorant claim that "science of today" is connected to
atheism, there was no point in addressing the remaining bullshit.
Science is agnostic, period. But you are too stupid and uneducated to
understand that simple point, since you do not understand the basic
princilpes of science. It would take too much effort on your part,
and it's easier to say "Goddidit!".
If you want to remain stupid and ignroant, that's your business. You
only are making yourself look more stupid and ignorant as you continue
to try to convince anyone with a education that your stupendiously
ignorant view of science has any merit.
Boikat
M
>
>>
>> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Where is your evidence there is no Zeus...?
M.
Sox
> On Dec 25, 8:36 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
>> 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
>> Immaculate Conception.
>
> A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end equals a
> valid claim of a supernatural life.
But then your problem is deciding which virgin birth is the right one.
All-seeing-I
Hey. Don't blame moi` because you are an unedcuated freak of nature
that only has the capacity to understand your coloring books.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <t2qZm.25$2r...@newsfe27.ams2>):
Huracan said so. He doesn't like the idea of anyone thinking that some
namby-pamby Greek boy-lover could steal _his_ thunder.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Boikat
Projetion. You are the willfully ignorant cetin that claimed learning
about science took too much effore, and that it was much easier to say
"goddidit!" If anyone here is showing ther lack of eucation, it is
you.
> that only has the capacity to understand your coloring books.
More projection. Irony, too, since *you're* the simplton that thinks
"ancient texts" are "factual acounts" of mythical events. If anyone
here is relying on "coloring books", it's you.
Grow up, Monnnkeey-boy.
Boikat
Scott Balneaves
> The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
> Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
> structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
> modern structure in America. Why is that?
Because you can force slaves to dig nice deep roadbeds and use a lot of
expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
know, the whole slavery thing.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Bible say's that's ok. Leviticus 25:44-46
ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? If so, you too can have cobblestone
roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
> Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
> with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
> could build a pyramid.
This is so patently rediculous as to be almost unbeleiveable. You don't really
beleive this do you? We've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE to
pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
Turn the histrionics down a notch, would you? You're just getting silly.
heekster
I see that you never seem to fail to avail yourself of that privilege.
Sox
news:hh4rke$dc0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
For a different take on philosophy you might read the dated but still
relevant "The Game of Science" by McCain and Segal. I would highly recommend
that book as a clear, readable introduction to how scientists think about
problems.
As the McCain and Segal point out, philosophers have been grappling for
centuries with big questions such as "What is the essence of life" and "What
is the greatest good?" and do not appear any closer to resolution. On the
other hand, using science to focus on solvable questions such as "Gee, I
wonder why milkmaids don't get smallpox?" has produced pretty spectacular
results.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 8:36�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
>> 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> >God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>> >despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>> >that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>> >the first place.
>>
>> When you develop a sceientific test for God's existence, do let us know. �
>> You'll be famous! �In the meantime, those of us who know where science
>> ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
>
>Well. If you take "God" on faith, why don't you take what God has
>given man as information regarding mankind's origins on faith as
>well?
>
Probably because lunatics claiming to be Essenes come riding in here
on their Cambrian mammals, and muddy the waters. Bullshit slingers
like you are responsible for driving thinking people away from their
faith. You are a bigtime apostate, and as I said previously, a cheap
hustler.
>> >But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>> >time either.
>>
>> >Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>> >man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>> >until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>> >God.
>>
>> >But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>> >"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>>
>> Few scientists actually make this claim.
>
>Then we have few scientists that post to talk.Origins. Only wannabe
>God haters that feel it is an extraordinary claim that creationist
>make when saying: God exists.
>
Then there is your total lack of mastery of the language to be
considered. Rather than making a bald unsubstantiated statement, "God
exists.", it might help facilitate discussion if you said, "I believe
that God exists". The latter is more tolerant than the former.
Also, atheists simply don't acknowledge a deity, so it is absurd for
you to claim that they hate something that they do not acknowledge the
existence thereof.
>> >You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>> >that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>> >non-existent sound frequencies
>>
>> >You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>>
>> >Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>>
>> >Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
>> Immaculate Conception.
>
>A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end equals a
>valid claim of a supernatural life.
>
Sounds more like "The Man who never Was".
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Let's look at the alleged points that you are so proud of:
>
>Not really. But I can understand why you say that. Science of today,
>specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
>cannot be seperated.
So, this was your claim for which you had neither evidence nor logical
argument, mere assertion that was justifiably called bullshit.
>The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
This assertion was also unsubstantiated and needs no argument against
it.
>but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read this board
>daily but not see that is turning a blind eye.
Anyone who can think is able to see the difference between religion and
science. I understand why this is beyond your grasp.
Then you wrote:
>Good. Because that was not my point. My point is many claim there is
>no God because there is no scientific evidence for God.
It is true that there is no evidence for God.
>Which is quite
>an extraordinary claim to make in the light that science discoverers
>new data and new testing methods every day.
But you have to show us how these discoveries are evidence for God if
you think they are.
>Science may say "We do not know that God exists because we have no
>means to test for God".
That's actually an excuse that was made by theists when no evidence for
God showed up when scientists began doing science. Scientists note that
they do not study the supernatural, but that doesn't explain why no
evidence of God's work is ever found in the natural.
>But the atheists says "God does not exist
>because science says it cannot test for God".
No, I don't think that argument is ever made by atheists, though you may
have found a naive one who thought it worked that way.
>Similar statements but with two very different meanings.
Okay, but it has nothing to do with the arguments you make.
>It would behoove science and it's reputation in front of the general
>public to separate itself from such remarks. If it does not, the
>outcome will be a lack of trust and faith in science. Which we see
>happening today.
The people who don't trust scientists are people being told lies about
life on earth, by religiously or politically motivated leaders.
Evolution deniers rely on the ignorance of their followers to con them
into believing that the very strong evidence for evolution does not
exist.
It would behoove believers to separate themselves from anti-evolution
creationists because of their remarks.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
He addressed it. He said you are a liar. Perhaps remedial reading
classes are something you should look into taking.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
...
>The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
>Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
>structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
>modern structure in America. Why is that?
Because Roman roads weren't expected to carry semis and do not.
>Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
>with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
>could build a pyramid.
You've never heard of a ramp? Really? How ignorant are you?
>Yeah. We have come a long Long LONG way; haven't we?
>
>Here is a clue. As long as you remove God from any of the scientific
>endeavors man seeks, then the findings will be incomplete or useless.
>What practical purpose does it serve to spend so much money to find a
>planet with water on it but the thing is so far away that we have no
>means to travel to it? All the while we need solutions on earth to so
>many of mankind's problems. The motivation for finding such planets is
>to suggest that God did not create life but rather life just
>spontaneously arose from lifeless matter.
>
>Compare this to a science that assumed God exists first, followed his
>suggestions that we look out for one another, and would be seeking for
>all of the solutions we need on earth instead of useless planets we
>cannot travel to.
Assuming that God exists does not increase our knowledge at all.
>Then shut up.
As long as you and other fools like you spread your ignorance, we need
to speak up against the foolishness you are selling.
Burkhard
When you ran your survey some time back, about half of the
evolutionist who responded identified themselves as theists. You are
the only one who thinks that is a problem. Of the self -decared
atheists, you would struggle to find one who has posted anything
resembling your claim.
Burkhard
> > thought it was pretty trite and ultimately meaningless. � �You are of
> > course right too, and that is the problem with this criteria: while it
> > describes correctly an aspect of belief revision, what is revised are
> > essentially prior probabilities. So as an allocation of proof
> > criteria, it simply begs the question. What will be extraordinary for
> > one will be "self-evident" for the other and vice versa.
>
> > much better, and in my view correctly allocates burden of proof in
> > form 'There is an X" �- but this is a different criteria from the
> > "extraordinary etc" one
>
> > Anyway, the evidence isn't that there is no �god, which is impossible to show. Merely that there is no god of the
> > sort claimed by most religions, and particularly of the sort claimed by creationists.
>
> You were doing pretty good until the end. Then the typical bias came
> out.
>
> If textual evidences were accepted then the God creationists mention
> is the same exact God in most religions.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Leaving aside the problem that the last sentence was not actually
mine, your idea to divide religions into broadly two groups, the
"right" one which despite substantial differences you declare to
worship the same god, and all the others you declare to be false
religions, is not supported by any evidence, reason or argument. The
only argument you ever gave against the Greek pantheon was tat you
fidn them exaggerated (i.e. your personal taste judgement) - to which
they (we) would answer you are just lacking their more refined sense
of perception. The only one biased here is you, with a cultural bias
towards the religions you grew up with, combined with an attempt of
empire building by trying to incorporate some others, while denying
them their on truth claims.
Davej
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> >>
> >> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> > You're confusing science with atheism. They are not the same thing,
> > nor does one require the other.
>
> Not really. But I can understand why you say that. �Science of today,
> specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
> cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
> but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read
Bullshit. You can believe that God designed and created everything in
the instant of the Big Bang and is now sitting back and watching it
all unfold exactly according to divine plan. You can even believe that
God sneaked in and created the first living organisms.
What has your panties in a knot is the fact that your old goat skin
writings are probably the worthless babbling of ancient soothsayers,
liars and kooks, just like the writings which mention the myriad of
other gods which have been invented over the centuries but have since
been discarded.
Eric Root
> Some of you morons
> assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist
Who is that? Bet you can't name anybody.
> or, that God does not apply to science.
Don't forget all of us pro-science types that are smarter than you on
the average. We also agree that God doesn't apply to science.
> This
> despite eyewitness accounts,
Which you have been challenged before to list and have failed, in
addition to having no rebuttal against the charge that eyewitnesses
are much less reliable than circumstantial evidence.
> textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does;
Very minor evidence that is always inferior to study of the natural
world.
(snip)
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
There is none, and it's totally irrelevant to the truth of evolution.
(snip)
Eric Root
Eric Root
> >> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> >> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> >> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> >> the first place.
>
> > What eyewitness accounts?
>
No answer for this, Nashton?
>
> � What textual evidence?
>
> What textual evidence? The best we have that can be qualified as textual
> evidence is something called Scripture.
>
What basis for rating this equal to, let alone any higher than the
examination of the natural world?
(snip)
>
> >> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> >> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> > Name one person who has said this.
>
> Go to Google groups, enter: God, evidence, existence and see what you
> can get.
>
ASI didn't post the OP to some other people elsewhere on usenet. He
said "some of you," meaning _us_. Which of _us_ has said that?
(snip)
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
> On Dec 26, 8:37�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 5:46 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> > >> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> > > You're confusing science with atheism. They are not the same thing,
> > > nor does one require the other.
>
> > Not really. But I can understand why you say that. �Science of today,
> > specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
> > cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
> > but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read
> > this board daily but not see that is turning a blind eye. [...]
>
> Bullshit. You can believe that God designed and created everything in
> the instant of the Big Bang and is now sitting back and watching it
> all unfold exactly according to divine plan. You can even believe that
> God sneaked in and created the first living organisms.
Sure. You can believe that. But it is not biblical. Why rewrite the
bible unnecessarly? We already have an explaination for how god
created man.
>
> What has your panties in a knot is the fact that your old goat skin
> writings are probably the worthless babbling of ancient soothsayers,
> liars and kooks, just like the writings which mention the myriad of
> other gods which have been invented over the centuries but have since
> been discarded.
More atheistic stupidity that has nothing to do with science.
All-seeing-I
You have not come up with any valid reasons why the witnesses lie. Nor
have you shown why so much information was painstakingly preserved for
such a long period of time.
When you add it up, the witnesses of biblical miracles are telling the
truth and the information was considered so valuable they went through
great lengths to preserve it.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would be nice if that were true, but it's not. True, I grew up with
a religion which is vastly different from my associated beliefs about
God today
Any reasonable research between the Sumerian tablets and the Greek
versions show the greeks were vastly embellishing and changing the
stories for their entertainment value.
All religions believe in a specific creator even though they may have
many lesser gods they worhip.
You seem to be wrong on all of your points
Burkhard
> Any reasonable research between the Sumerian tablets and the Greek
> versions show the greeks were vastly embellishing and changing the
> stories for their entertainment value.
>
Evidence? I say te greek gods are much more plausible than the
Sumerian ones' prove me wrong. After all, why would Homer lie?
> All religions believe in a specific creator even though they may have
> many lesser gods they worhip.
>
Lesser by your arbitrary decision?
Davej
> On Dec 26, 10:27�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 8:37�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 26, 5:46 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > > All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> > > >> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> > > > You're confusing science with atheism. They are not the same thing,
> > > > nor does one require the other.
>
> > > Not really. But I can understand why you say that. �Science of today,
> > > specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
> > > cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
> > > but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read
> > > this board daily but not see that is turning a blind eye. [...]
>
> > Bullshit. You can believe that God designed and created everything in
> > the instant of the Big Bang and is now sitting back and watching it
> > all unfold exactly according to divine plan. You can even believe that
> > God sneaked in and created the first living organisms.
>
> Sure. You can believe that. But it is not biblical. Why rewrite the
> bible unnecessarly? We already have an explaination for how god
> created man.
An account which has essentially been disproved. Certainly there was
no global flood and language was not the result of building a tower.
Eric Root
I don't think they lie, and have never claimed they lie. But
eyewitnesses can make mistakes, or their eyes fool them. I also asked
you, and you failed to answer, what eyewitnesses? Do you know who
wrote the Gospels (or anything else in the Bible, and when? What
answer do you have to the charge that the Bible was written, years
after the facts, by people who are reporting what other people
_thought_ they saw, or just heard other people say?
> Nor
> have you shown why so much information was painstakingly preserved for
> such a long period of time.
>
Because they believed it and it was emotionally important to them? It
doesn't have to be literally true for that.
> When you add it up, the witnesses of biblical miracles are telling the
> truth
How do you know? The Bible does not consist of first-hand reports,
nor any guarantee that people didn't make mistakes.
(snip)
If you ever want to stand a chance of convincing theistic
evolutionists, you have to have good answers to the questions I've
asked you.
Eric Root
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 8:56�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Some of you morons
>> > assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> > God must not exist
>>
>> Who is that? �Bet you can't name anybody.
>>
>> > or, that God does not apply to science.
>>
>> Don't forget all of us pro-science types that are smarter than you on
>> the average. �We also agree that God doesn't apply to science.
>>
>> > This
>> > despite eyewitness accounts,
>>
>> Which you have been challenged before to list and have failed, in
>> addition to having no rebuttal against the charge that eyewitnesses
>> are much less reliable than circumstantial evidence.
>>
>> > textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>> > that shows He does;
>>
>> Very minor evidence that is always inferior to study of the natural
>> world.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>> > Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> There is none, and it's totally irrelevant to the truth of evolution.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Eric Root
>
>You have not come up with any valid reasons why the witnesses lie.
What witnesses?
>Nor
>have you shown why so much information was painstakingly preserved for
>such a long period of time.
Why are there so many different religions that have lasted so long? Are
they all correct, as your argument implies.
>When you add it up, the witnesses of biblical miracles are telling the
>truth and the information was considered so valuable they went through
>great lengths to preserve it.
There are no witnesses. You don't get to claim that there were witnesses
just because it would make it convenient for you.
Eric Root
You gain nothing by using such charged terms as "worthless babbling"
and "liars."
Just because we now know such things to not be literally true in the
physical universe doesn't justify such denigration of ethnic folk
beliefs, or the idea they served no legitimate purpose in their
culture.
Eric Root
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 26, 10:27�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 8:37�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 26, 5:46 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> > >> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> > > You're confusing science with atheism. They are not the same thing,
>> > > nor does one require the other.
>>
>> > Not really. But I can understand why you say that. �Science of today,
>> > specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
>> > cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
>> > but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read
>> > this board daily but not see that is turning a blind eye. [...]
>>
>> Bullshit. You can believe that God designed and created everything in
>> the instant of the Big Bang and is now sitting back and watching it
>> all unfold exactly according to divine plan. You can even believe that
>> God sneaked in and created the first living organisms.
>
>Sure. You can believe that. But it is not biblical. Why rewrite the
>bible unnecessarly? We already have an explaination for how god
>created man.
Why do you interpret the Bible to make it even more wrong than it is on
the surface? Why do you reject alternative readings that allow the Bible
not to look stupid?
>> What has your panties in a knot is the fact that your old goat skin
>> writings are probably the worthless babbling of ancient soothsayers,
>> liars and kooks, just like the writings which mention the myriad of
>> other gods which have been invented over the centuries but have since
>> been discarded.
>
>More atheistic stupidity that has nothing to do with science.
Your interpretation of the Bible is shown to be false by scientific
discoveries.
Davej
> On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 8:56�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some of you morons
> > > assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> > > God must not exist
>
> > Who is that? �Bet you can't name anybody.
>
> > > or, that God does not apply to science.
>
> > Don't forget all of us pro-science types that are smarter than you on
> > the average. �We also agree that God doesn't apply to science.
>
> > > This
> > > despite eyewitness accounts,
>
> > Which you have been challenged before to list and have failed, in
> > addition to having no rebuttal against the charge that eyewitnesses
> > are much less reliable than circumstantial evidence.
>
> > > textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> > > that shows He does;
>
> > Very minor evidence that is always inferior to study of the natural
> > world.
>
>
> > There is none, and it's totally irrelevant to the truth of evolution.
>
>
> have you shown why so much information was painstakingly preserved for
> such a long period of time.
>
> When you add it up, the witnesses of biblical miracles are telling the
> truth and the information was considered so valuable they went through
> great lengths to preserve it.
Yes, let us consider the Egyptian gods. Just think of all the trouble
they went through to build those pyramids and tombs. Makes the
dedication of Christians look paltry by comparison.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW.
Sumerian Enki verses Enlil, equal to Greek Poseidon verses Zeus
All-Seeing-I
> :
>
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
> > 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> M.
Sumerian Enki verses Enlil, equal to Greek Poseidon verses Zeus
En was "God" ---the one that created everything
Your analogy fails.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You would not be asking such uninformed questions if you had compared
the two versions. The Sumer ones are older, that fact alone equals the
Greeks plagiarized
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Schience has shown nothing accurate. Merly inferences of data and
subjective interpretations of that data.
I hardly call THAT a final authority on the origins of anything.
But many of you worship it as though you were holding some sort of
final truth. but you are not.
Too bad. So sad.
For you.
All-Seeing-I
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
> > Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
> > structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
> > modern structure in America. Why is that?
>
> expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
> know, the whole slavery thing.
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot. �Bible say's that's ok. Leviticus 25:44-46
>
> ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? �If so, you too can have cobblestone
> roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
>
> > Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
> > with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
> > could build a pyramid.
>
> beleive this do you? �We've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
> Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE to
> pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
>
> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
>
> AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
>
> Turn the histrionics down a notch, would you? �You're just getting silly.
Get back with me whan that CNN Tower is 3000 years old. And that
bridge you mention needs constant daily repair and paint or it would
fall apart. Sure, you made your point!
MegaBytes of laughter!
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
So much for Eric's attempt to treat you with respect.
>I hardly call THAT a final authority on the origins of anything.
That's because you have demonstrated here that you call yourself the
final authority, even on things that you are ignorant about.
>But many of you worship it as though you were holding some sort of
>final truth. but you are not.
>
>Too bad. So sad.
>
>For you.
Your hubris keeps you from learning.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
All-Seeing-I
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c196984f-2cea-44ce...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 25, 8:36 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
> >> 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> >> >Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> >> Immaculate Conception.
>
> > A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end equals a
> > valid claim of a supernatural life.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_(mythology)
Bwahahah!!!
an incomplete Wiki article?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 26, 11:27�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 8:37�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 26, 5:46 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> > >> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> > > You're confusing science with atheism. They are not the same thing,
>> > > nor does one require the other.
>>
>> > Not really. But I can understand why you say that. �Science of today,
>> > specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
>> > cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
>> > but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read
>> > this board daily but not see that is turning a blind eye. [...]
>>
>> Bullshit. You can believe that God designed and created everything in
>> the instant of the Big Bang and is now sitting back and watching it
>> all unfold exactly according to divine plan. You can even believe that
>> God sneaked in and created the first living organisms.
>>
>> What has your panties in a knot is the fact that your old goat skin
>> writings are probably the worthless babbling of ancient soothsayers,
>> liars and kooks, just like the writings which mention the myriad of
>> other gods which have been invented over the centuries but have since
>> been discarded.
>
>You gain nothing by using such charged terms as "worthless babbling"
>and "liars."
Really?
>Just because we now know such things to not be literally true in the
>physical universe doesn't justify such denigration of ethnic folk
>beliefs, or the idea they served no legitimate purpose in their
>culture.
When someone asserts that their 'ethnic folk beliefs' are true and that
physical evidence is false, then it makes sense to point out their
errors, even if we have no hope that they will correct them. Others who
may have heard these fallacious claims can be warned against them.
Sox
The difficulty comes in comparing that particular account for that
particular religion to other accounts in other religions -- just as
painstakingly preserved over long periods of time. When you add it up one
can also come to the conclusion that humans, when faced with things they do
not understand, have a penchant for ascribing them to "miracles" performed
by deities that, while more powerful than themselves, think and act
amazingly like they do.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 26, 10:56�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
I see that you did not answer the first question. You claim to be some
sort of pseudo-Essene now, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam are not
much different at all from the doctrines you are posting here today.
RAM
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
> > Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
> > structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
> > modern structure in America. Why is that?
>
> Because you can force slaves to dig nice deep roadbeds and use a lot of
> expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
> know, the whole slavery thing.
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot. �Bible say's that's ok. Leviticus 25:44-46
>
> ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? �If so, you too can have cobblestone
> roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
>
> > Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
> > with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
> > could build a pyramid.
>
> This is so patently rediculous as to be almost unbeleiveable. �You don't really
> beleive this do you? �We've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
> Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE to
> pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
>
> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
>
> AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
>
> Turn the histrionics down a notch, would you? �You're just getting silly.
Your are wrong he is not getting silly. He has always been silly and
histrionic assertions is all he's got! 10000 + non substantive posts
and silly is as silly does.
E. g. he believes that aliens where recorded by the Sumerians as using
"in vitro fertilization" to create the present hybrid human species.
This sets the silliness bar so high that even he can't jump over it
now. (Of course his silliness is functionally equivalent to being
loony! )
Dan Listermann
useless. Want to bet it is someone really close to you!
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 26, 6:38 am, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 6:18 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > >> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> > >> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>> > >> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal
>> > >> data
>> > >> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science
>> > >> in
>> > >> the first place.
>>
>> > > What eyewitness accounts?
>>
>> > What eyewitness accounts?
>>
>> > What textual evidence?
>>
>> > textual
>> > evidence is something called Scripture.
>>
>>
>> > > any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>>
>> > of
>> > humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
>> > possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
>> > complete and if most things were known and predictable.
>>
>> > As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
>> > the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote
>> > ideologies.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sorry, but this last is so unbelievably silly that I cannot help but
>> comment. If indeed you believe that 'little has changed in our state
>> of knowledge' in the 1600 years since Scripture was canonized, simply
>> consider surgery without anesthesia. I also note that within the last
>> couple of months we discovered an Earth-sized extra-solar planet with
>> water in the atmosphere (GJ1214b; see Nature 462, 853-854 (17 December
>> 2009)). Consider the knowledge necessary to construct the technology
>> required to do this. Consider the understanding of nature required to
>> determine atmospheric composition of a planet 42 light years away.
>> Or consider the 50,000 Filipinos who won't be buried in ash when Mayon
>> volcano goes blooey because of what we know about predicting volcanic
>> eruptions (for other examples of this, look at the eruption of Rabaul
>> about ten years back - two deaths out of thousands saved because of
>> adequate warning of an impending eruption). Then compare this to the
>> state of knowledge in the later Roman Empire, for example. Then shut
>> up.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> bloated with self importance and corrupt.
Please explain to us how religion is not "bloated with self importance and
corruption."
.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:a2d40047-3946-4794...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Hey, the Sumerian pantheon included one Ninkasi - the Goddess of Beer. This
sort of thing cannot be dismissed out of hand!
.
Dan Listermann
> A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end equals a
> valid claim of a supernatural life.
>
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 26, 5:46 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> > God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>> > despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>> > that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>> > the first place.
>>
>> > time either.
>>
>> > man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>> > until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>> > God.
>>
>> > But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>> > "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>>
>> > that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>> > non-existent sound frequencies
>>
>> > You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>>
>> > Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>>
>> > Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> nor does one require the other.
>
> Not really. But I can understand why you say that. Science of today,
> specifically evolutionary science, is connected to atheism now. It
> cannot be seperated. The one is scientific, the other is ideoligical,
> but two have become one and conflated. How can anyone read this board
> daily but not see that is turning a blind eye.
>
the discoveries of science greatly enhanced the understanding of atheism,
but atheism has nothing to do with scientific discoveries.
.
Inez
> On 26 Dec, 02:25, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> > > God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> > > despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> > > that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> > > the first place.
>
> > any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>
> > And god created science? I think you're very confused about that.
>
> > Science can study god, if and only if god can be defined well enough so
> > that his existence or lack thereof has empirical consequences. Without
> > such consequences he might exist, but we couldn't tell.
>
> > > time either.
>
> > because some things were unknown doesn't mean anything at all is
> > possible. You can't milk that one trope forever.
>
> > > man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> > > until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> > > God.
>
> > > But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> > > "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
>
> > > that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> > > non-existent sound frequencies
>
> > > You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> > > Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> > > Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> > extraordinary than no god.
>
> I sort of agree with AS1 on this, at least if you take his post as a
> reductio ad absurdum argument against the frequent use of this
> particular �cliche on TO to allocate burdens of proof. I always
> thought it was pretty trite and ultimately meaningless. � �You are of
> course right too, and that is the problem with this criteria: while it
> describes correctly an aspect of belief revision, what is revised are
> essentially prior probabilities. So as an allocation of proof
> criteria, it simply begs the question. What will be extraordinary for
> one will be "self-evident" for the other and vice versa.
>
Not to go all backspace, but I don't that ASI's question is meaningful
until he defines what he means by "god." Any god? A specific god?
What are the parameters of "god?" Something probably exists that
someone thinks qualifies as god- Eric Clapton or something. But you
can't provide evidence against a specific conception of god without
knowing what it is.
There is strong evidence that Noah's flood never happened, does that
disprove the god of the bible? Why or why not?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<20a8dfde-afbf-476e...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):
Huracan, Ogun, and Thor all say you're full of shit.
Hold onto a thunderbolt, you hell-bound heretic.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
RAM
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
> > 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> >> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> >> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> >> the first place.
>
> > You'll be famous! �In the meantime, those of us who know where science
> > ends and faith begins will just continue to take him on faith.
>
> There is no test for God's existence you uneducated cretin.
> The existence of God and the acceptance of his existence is in a sphere
> of knowledge above that of empirical science in the realm of philosophy,
>
> It's a great subject you really ought to familiarize yourself with it
> because science, as we know it today, is being transformed by
> philosophy, especially in the physical sciences.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> >> time either.
>
> >> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> >> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> >> God.
>
> >> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> >> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> >> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> >> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> >> non-existent sound frequencies
>
> >> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>
> >> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
>
> > Immaculate Conception.
>
> most extraordinary achievements of mankind, i.e. philosophy, can post
> any idiocy/one liner they desire on the Usenet.
>
>
>
>
I happen to like the his one liner and all you do is use misdirection
and avoid the reality of religious beliefs that have existed in
thousands of cultures that assert their particular universal
unchanging truths and beliefs.
Why is that? Are you a coward? Can't answer the implicite
question? Or are you going to be the classic snotty putz and who
throws "any idiocy/one liner they desire on the Usenet."
Burkhard
That;s just your imperialism again that tries to destroy local
knowledge in the name of your one true religion, without evidence that
they really are the same. Neither Zeus or Poseidon created humans, we
are _obviously_ created by the Titans (or possibly what came out of
their destruction) long before these second rate gods replaced the
golden age. particular.
Which is why these new gods aren't really on our side, as the evidecne
all around you shows.
Burkhard
You are just lacking spiritual perception, propably a genetic
malfunction on your side.
>if you had compared
> the two versions. The Sumer ones are older, that fact alone equals the
> Greeks plagiarized
Nonsense. The greek myth was kept as oral tradition long before Sumer
- prove me wrong. Anyway, if you want an accurate description of an
event, you want a description as close as possible _after_ it happens,
descriptions from a time before the event took place are just
worthless. So you rnotion tht the older record is better falls flat
on its face for this reason alone.
Burkhard
Oh absolutely. But all these are substantive points that show he is
talking nonsense, not formal issues of who has the burden to provide
the evidence, and what standard is applicable. My beef is only with
the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" idea which I
think is for most practical purposes useless as a criteria, and where
it works it seems to be possible to replace it with better (more
general, well understood ad epistemoogically justified) and more
neutral principles such as the principle of knoweldge conservation.
That he tries so to speak to turn this argument around and require
evidence for the "extraordinary" claim of the atheist shows in my
opinion just how arbitrary it is.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<697f1813-86e3-4a70...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 26, 9:47ï¿œam, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
>>> Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
>>> structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
>>> modern structure in America. Why is that?
>>
>> Because you can force slaves to dig nice deep roadbeds and use a lot of
>> expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
>> know, the whole slavery thing.
>>
>> Oh, yeah, I forgot. ï¿œBible say's that's ok. Leviticus 25:44-46
>>
>> ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? ï¿œIf so, you too can have
>> cobblestone
>> roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
>>
>>> Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
>>> with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
>>> could build a pyramid.
>>
>> This is so patently rediculous as to be almost unbeleiveable. ï¿œYou don't
>> really
>> beleive this do you? ï¿œWe've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
>> Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE to
>> pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
>>
>> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
>>
>> AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
>>
>> Turn the histrionics down a notch, would you? ï¿œYou're just getting silly.
>
> Get back with me whan that CNN Tower is 3000 years old. And that
> bridge you mention needs constant daily repair and paint or it would
> fall apart. Sure, you made your point!
>
> MegaBytes of laughter!
>
If being able to survive for a long time without maintenance is your standard
of excellence, well, the best-built objects in the world today would be, in
no particular order:
the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. NORAD put its command center under a mountain,
mounted on very big springs, made of lots and lots of reinforced concrete.
It'll be around for a very long time indeed unless someone puts a pretty big
nuke into it.
the Atlantic Wall. A rather large percentage of Rommel's beach defence
bunkers are still around because, well, they're too big and tough to break up
without spending a _lot_ of cash. They withstood direct hits from 6-ton
'Earthquake' bombs, from dreadnought guns, and up-close-and-personal
demolition charges and have been exposed to weather without maintenance since
1944 and show no signs of going away anytime soon.
assorted U-boot pens. Barnes Wallis developed the 6 and 10 ton 'Earthquake'
bombs ('Tallboy' and 'Grand Slam', respectively) specifically to break them.
The U-boot pens were so big that the objective was to get a really big bomb
going really fast (when dropped from 20,000 feet a Grand Slam exceeded Mach 1
before impacting...) and deliberately miss. The bomb would bore deeply into
the ground near the target, and detonate _under_ the target and rip its
foundations out, causing it to collapse of its own weight. The theory was
tested on targets such as the Biefeld viaduct and the dreadnought TIRPITZ,
with great success. It didn't work on the U-boot pens, they were too big and
too tough. They're still there... (It should be noted that Barnes Wallis was
sufficiently ahead of his time that the USAF is currently trying, and
failing, to build its own 'Earthquake' bomb, a 14 ton bunker buster allegedly
to be used on Iranian nuke storage areas. It's to be dropped from B2s from 30
to 40,000 feet... if they can get the things to work right. So far they
haven't managed. Memo to the USAF: RAF Hendon has a couple Lancaster B Mk 2
Specials and at least one Grand Slam; perhaps if you ask nicely HM Government
might lend them to you. For a fee.)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_quake_bomb>
Pads 39A and 39B, Kennedy Space Flight Center. The Apollo missions lifted
from 39A and B. They're still in operation; shuttles fly from 39B.
assorted dams, including very large dams in the United States such as those
on the Colorado River and in various parts of the Tennessee Valley System,
and the even larger dams on various tributaries of the Amazon which, among
other things, provide potable water and electric power for millions of
people. Also, the Aswan High Dam, and its little brother the original Aswan
Dam.
Greg G.
> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
> the first place.
It's just that whenever humans have developed the ability to test
gods, those gods either disappear or they get redefined to be outside
of testability.
>
> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
> time either.
God invented the ability to detect ultrasound? Why did he wait so
long?
>
> Then, science developed a way to test for them.
Oh, you meant human science.
> Clearly showing that
> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
> God.
That's because God will be redefined to be even less testable.
>
> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
>
> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
Humans are quite capable of imagining things that do not exist. How is
doubting the existence of something that is indistinguishable from an
imaginary thing extraordinary?
>
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Your lousy argument for the existence of God is evidence that there is
no God. Real things tend to not have to be argued for. One just points
to the evidence.
Sox
No, just one that, at the time I linked it, included a lengthy description
of five or six variants of "virgin births.".
Other links are:
http://www.entheology.org/POCM/pagan_origins_virgin_birth.html
Davej
>
> You have not come up with any valid reasons why the witnesses lie. Nor
> have you shown why so much information was painstakingly preserved for
> such a long period of time.
>
> When you add it up, the witnesses of biblical miracles are telling the
> truth and the information was considered so valuable they went through
> great lengths to preserve it.
Gosh, let's look at the world today. Why do witnesses lie? They still
lie, don't they? They have personal motivations, don't they? How is
anyone else going to know they are lying? Do you really believe that a
900 ft tall Jesus appeared before Oral Roberts, or did he just need
more money? Do Christians from across the world come to worship where
the 900 ft tall Jesus appeared? Have you been there yourself? Why not?
Nashton
>>>> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>>>> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>>>> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>>>> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>>>> the first place.
>> What eyewitness accounts?
>>
>> What textual evidence?
>>
>> evidence is something called Scripture.
>>
>>
>>> any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>> humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
>> possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
>> complete and if most things were known and predictable.
>>
>> As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
>> the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote ideologies.
>>
>>
> <snip>
>
> Sorry, but this last is so unbelievably silly that I cannot help but
> comment.
I should have been a little more precise as to what I consider as not
having changed:
1. Despots and warlords still run freely killing innocents.
2. Kids are dying by the 10s of thousands every day.
3. Our Oceans are running out of fish because of man's greed and
appetite for wealth.
What has not changed is basic human nature and greed. Science has added
many wonderful things to those who can either afford them or are
afforded to them
If indeed you believe that 'little has changed in our state
> of knowledge' in the 1600 years since Scripture was canonized, simply
> consider surgery without anesthesia. I also note that within the last
> couple of months we discovered an Earth-sized extra-solar planet with
> water in the atmosphere (GJ1214b; see Nature 462, 853-854 (17 December
> 2009)). Consider the knowledge necessary to construct the technology
> required to do this. Consider the understanding of nature required to
> determine atmospheric composition of a planet 42 light years away.
> Or consider the 50,000 Filipinos who won't be buried in ash when Mayon
> volcano goes blooey because of what we know about predicting volcanic
> eruptions (for other examples of this, look at the eruption of Rabaul
> about ten years back - two deaths out of thousands saved because of
> adequate warning of an impending eruption). Then compare this to the
> state of knowledge in the later Roman Empire, for example. Then shut
> up.
This is indeed real science at work.
None of which had anything to do with the ToE, unfortunately.
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:22:15 -0500, All-Seeing-I wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:47�am, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>> The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
> >>> Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
> >>> structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
> >>> modern structure in America. Why is that?
>
> >> Because you can force slaves to dig nice deep roadbeds and use a lot of
> >> expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
> >> know, the whole slavery thing.
>
>
> >> ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? �If so, you too can have
> >> cobblestone
> >> roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
>
> >>> Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
> >>> with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
> >>> could build a pyramid.
>
> >> really
> >> beleive this do you? �We've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
> >> Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE to
> >> pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
>
> >>http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
>
> >> AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
All of your examples show man using nature. None of them are thousands
of years old.
The Hoover Dam (and other) would collapse within 100 years with no
maintance
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Such an argument is beneath you. Or so I thought anyway. That does not
hold water. The Greeks were not even in Greece before the invention of
writing to have word of mouth traditions. But there is evidence of
people living in the Sumer region before the invention of writing.
They mention events that preceded the writing therefore they were
keeping word of mouth traditions.
Klaus Hellnick
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:22:15 -0500, All-Seeing-I wrote
> (in article
> <697f1813-86e3-4a70...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
>>>> Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
>>>> structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
>>>> modern structure in America. Why is that?
>>> Because you can force slaves to dig nice deep roadbeds and use a lot of
>>> expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
>>> know, the whole slavery thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? If so, you too can have
>>> roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
>>>
>>>> Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
>>>> with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
>>>> could build a pyramid.
>>> really
>>> beleive this do you? We've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
>>> Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE to
>>> pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
>>>
>>> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
>>>
>>> AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
>>>
You forgot various spacecraft, especially probes headed out of the solar
system and various pieces of equipment parked on the moon.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Compare this to a science that assumed God exists first,
Then it would not be science.
>followed his suggestions that we look out for one another,
Science has saved more lives than all teh prayers to all the gods for all of
time.
Even if that number was "one" the statement would still be true.
> and would be seeking for
> all of the solutions we need on earth instead of useless planets we
> cannot travel to.
There is no aspect of your life that has not been made better by NASA spin
offs from the exploration of space.
Dental drills, portable medical monitors, flight in ariplanes, food
production, car design, fire fighting, garbage collection, computers....
The list is enough to fill several books
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and Inez are setting conditions when none are needed.
Besides, it should be common knowledge that we are talking about a
creator since we are on an origins NG.
In the context of a first creator of everything, you persist anyway
and make the extraordinary claim:
"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
But this claim is made with the full knowledge that a test may be
developed some day that will show a supernatural creator may exist. ---
just like the one that found the non-existent sound frequencies.
As I said in the OP:
You have now made an extraordinary claim when saying:
"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
Burkhard
They mirror your's one by one, so you might be right on this
> Or so I thought anyway. That does not
> hold water. The Greeks were not even in Greece before the invention of
> writing to have word of mouth traditions.
So you need to stay in a country to have a word of mouth tradition?
Fine, rules out most of hebrew lore.
> But there is evidence of
> people living in the Sumer region before the invention of writing.
>
> They mention events that preceded the writing therefore they were
> keeping word of mouth traditions.
So do the Greek. they even mention events that took place before your
generation of gods was around
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Apparently God is still a deadbeat dad or nonexistent, too.
>If indeed you believe that 'little has changed in our state
>> of knowledge' in the 1600 years since Scripture was canonized, simply
>> consider surgery without anesthesia. I also note that within the last
>> couple of months we discovered an Earth-sized extra-solar planet with
>> water in the atmosphere (GJ1214b; see Nature 462, 853-854 (17 December
>> 2009)). Consider the knowledge necessary to construct the technology
>> required to do this. Consider the understanding of nature required to
>> determine atmospheric composition of a planet 42 light years away.
>> Or consider the 50,000 Filipinos who won't be buried in ash when Mayon
>> volcano goes blooey because of what we know about predicting volcanic
>> eruptions (for other examples of this, look at the eruption of Rabaul
>> about ten years back - two deaths out of thousands saved because of
>> adequate warning of an impending eruption). Then compare this to the
>> state of knowledge in the later Roman Empire, for example. Then shut
>> up.
>
>This is indeed real science at work.
>
>None of which had anything to do with the ToE, unfortunately.
Your refusal to look at the value of the theory of evolution does not in
any manner change the facts about evolution.
All-seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e313f99e-91cc-469d...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:32 am, "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote:
> >> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c196984f-2cea-44ce...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...>
> >> On Dec 25, 8:36 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:5483b2bf-7496-49ac-a02f-
> >> >> 9f6ed58f0...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> <snip other portions of post>
>
> >> >> >Where is your evidence there is no God?
>
> >> >> Of course your cult has substituted the "irrational deception" for the
> >> >> Immaculate Conception.
>
> >> > A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end equals a
> >> > valid claim of a supernatural life.
>
> >> But then your problem is deciding which virgin birth is the right one.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_(mythology)
>
> > Bwahahah!!!
>
> > an incomplete Wiki article?
>
> No, just one that, at the time I linked it, included a lengthy description
> of five or six variants of "virgin births.".
>
> Other links are:
>
> http://www.entheology.org/POCM/pagan_origins_virgin_birth.html
This one shows that others are considered to have been divinly
impregnated.
> http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml
oh my. An atheist web site. But a good one nonetheless.
All this shows is Virgin Births were considered to happen.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=2uFOIRu3faMC&dq=virgin+birth+myths&p..
> - Show quoted text -
The claim was "A" virgin birth.
"A virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end"
Which virgin birth is irrelevent for the purpose of discussion.
Besides, Can there really be more then a single type of virgin birth
and immaculate conception?
If your wiki article listed more then one VB then that obviously shows
there are posibilties and conditions that virgin births may happen
under.
So a virgin birth on one end and an empty tomb on the other end
clearly suggests a supernatural event. Some of the examples at your
links say the same.
All-seeing-I
You are just rationalizing.
> > Or so I thought anyway. That does not
> > hold water. The Greeks were not even in Greece before the invention of
> > writing to have word of mouth traditions.
>
> So you need to stay in a country to have a word of mouth tradition?
> Fine, rules out most of hebrew lore.
No. But shouldn't there at least BE a country first to have traditions
from the country? humm?? Even if the tales traveled to Greece,
wouldn't that show they did not originate from Greece?
And what do the Hebrews have to do with this? they kept their
traditions even though they were nomadic AND their traditions
originate from Sumer too.
All of them do. Greek, Roman, Heberw, all of them except Egypt stem
from the same word of mouth traditions that originated from Sumer. I
suspect the pyramids are actually older and that the sumerians
actually originated in Egypt. Which would make egypt much older then
scientists think.
> > But there is evidence of
> > people living in the Sumer region before the invention of writing.
>
> > They mention events that preceded the writing therefore they were
> > keeping word of mouth traditions.
>
> So do the Greek. they even mention events that took place before your
> generation of gods was around
heh.. because they are mentioning the same gods of the Sumerians but
with different names. So did the Romans. They did so thousands of
years after the Sumer tales were told.
The stories did not make it to Greece until (I forget which one) a
Greek mathematician traveled to Egypt and Mesopotamia to learn math
and building techniques. He learned of the stories during his stay and
brought them back to Greece in the first century BC while the Sumer
traditions were written down much earlier play they mention events
even earlier then that.
So many millions of people believe these Gods existed and wrote about
them.
But.
Some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
"We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
non-existent sound frequencies
You have now made an extraordinary claim that goes against all other
written down prior knowledge.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
Where is your evidence there is no God?
- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
And Inez point was that this is too unspecific to be even meaningful.
>
> In the context of a first creator of everything, you persist anyway
> and make the extraordinary claim:
>
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
Neither of us did
> But this claim is made with the full knowledge that a test may be
> developed some day that will show a supernatural creator may exist. ---
> just like the one that found the non-existent sound frequencies.
>
Till then, then. Science (and everyday knowledge too) deals with the
data we have, not the one we might have.
> As I said in the OP:
> You have now made an extraordinary claim when saying:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
Strawman, as nobody made this inference
> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>
> Where is your evidence there is no God?
Since I believe tat all gods exist, and it is you who says only some
of them are real, really your job to come up with that evidence
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hh5p3g$bg0$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Oh, yeah. Except that Madman doesn't believe that men walked on the Moon...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<625a97fd-de02-4a26...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 26, 12:35ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:22:15 -0500, All-Seeing-I wrote
>> (in article
>> <697f1813-86e3-4a70-8062-fa04347f6...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 26, 9:47ï¿œam, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
>>>>> Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
>>>>> structures they built are still there today and will outlast any
>>>>> modern structure in America. Why is that?
>>
>>>> Because you can force slaves to dig nice deep roadbeds and use a lot of
>>>> expensive to cut stone, because you don't have to pay them wages 'cuz, you
>>>> know, the whole slavery thing.
>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, I forgot. ï¿œBible say's that's ok. Leviticus 25:44-46
>>
>>>> ASI, Nashton, do you approve of slavery? ï¿œIf so, you too can have
>>>> cobblestone
>>>> roads with roadbeds an average of 4' deep.
>>
>>>>> Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
>>>>> with modern technology. In fact, man does not even have a device that
>>>>> could build a pyramid.
>>
>>>> This is so patently rediculous as to be almost unbeleiveable. ï¿œYou don't
>>>> really
>>>> beleive this do you? ï¿œWe've built things such as the CN Tower, the Panama
>>>> Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc etc, but we DONT HAVE A DEVICE
>>>> to
>>>> pile limestone rocks in a pyramid shape?
>>
>>>> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/tower-crane12.jpg
>>
>>>> AUGH! WHAT IS THIS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY?!
>>
>>>> Turn the histrionics down a notch, would you? ï¿œYou're just getting silly.
None of them are going to go away anytime soon. Especially the U-boot pens
and the Cheyenne Mountain Complex.
And the pyramids were built by men using nature, oh thou hell-bound heretic.
>
> The Hoover Dam (and other) would collapse within 100 years with no
> maintance
>
Ah... nope. It's a _gravity_ dam. Gravity dams have to be destroyed by active
outside forces.
Burkhard
> On Dec 26, 1:54�ｿｽpm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Dec, 19:44, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On 26 Dec, 17:10, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
So your argument that the Greek oral tradition is invalid just because
the people who were t become the Greek brought them from elsewhere is
invalid.
>
> All of them do. Greek, Roman, Heberw, all of them except Egypt stem
> from the same word of mouth traditions that originated from Sumer.
Rationalisation. Our gods are much older, from the golden age before
your upstarrt gods came into being
> suspect the pyramids are actually older and that the sumerians
> actually originated in Egypt. Which would make egypt much older then
> scientists think.
>
Your claim, no evidence
> > > But there is evidence of
> > > people living in the Sumer region before the invention of writing.
>
so what?
> > > They mention events that preceded the writing therefore they were
> > > keeping word of mouth traditions.
>
> > So do the Greek. they even mention events that took place before your
> > generation of gods was around
>
> heh.. �ｿｽbecause they are mentioning the same gods of the Sumerians but
> with different names. So did the Romans. They did so thousands of
> years after the Sumer tales were told.
Your claim, no evidence. you worship false gods, the greek gods are
true and older than the gods of Sumer.
>
> The stories did not make it to Greece until (I forget which one) a
> Greek mathematician traveled to Egypt and Mesopotamia to learn math
> and building techniques. He learned of the stories during his stay and
> brought them back to Greece in the first century BC while the Sumer
> traditions were written down much earlier play they mention events
> even earlier then that.
>
Your rationalisation, no evidence
> So many millions of people believe these Gods existed and wrote about
> them.
>
as with ther true gods of Greece
> But.
>
> Some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>
Your invention, that claim only exists in your mind
> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
> non-existent sound frequencies
>
So what? I intend to take the bus tomorrow even if hypothetically, I
might find out one day that for the past years, I only hallucinated
there were a bus. Til then, then
> You have now made an extraordinary claim that goes against all other
> written down prior knowledge.
>
No, you did in claiming your god is the only one, and denying our gods
their independent existence
> Extraordinary claims call for ...
>
> read more �ｿｽ
Sox
Nice try, but no cigar. The links show that "virgin births" are part of
belief systems other than Christianity. The point -- which, of course, you
chose to ignore -- is that there are a lot of myths out there claiming
virgin births. So using a virgin birth as a selection criteria leaves you
with way too many to chose from.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>>> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>>> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>>> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> What eyewitness accounts?
>
>What eyewitness accounts?
>
> What textual evidence?
>
>What textual evidence? The best we have that can be qualified as textual
>evidence is something called Scripture.
Bronze age fiction.
>
> What makes you think
>> any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>
>What makes you think that "science", which is nothing but an endeavor of
>humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
>possess is reliable?
The fact that we use it every day.
> I could understand your question if science was
>complete and if most things were known and predictable.
Most things are predictable.
>
>As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
>the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote ideologies.
Nope. Wrong as usual.
>
>>
>> And god created science? I think you're very confused about that.
>
>If God created Man,
Man created gods. What part of that is so hard to understand?
> then by extension, he created anything man is
>involved in.
Idiot.
>
>>
>> Science can study god, if and only if god can be defined well enough so
>> that his existence or lack thereof has empirical consequences. Without
>> such consequences he might exist, but we couldn't tell.
>
>So what exactly would you need, John? Weekly updates on CNN?
Well even one scrap of evidence would be a start. But after all these
thousands of years and millions of gods what have you to show?
Nothing.
>
>>
>>> But there were sound frequencies that also did not exist to man at one
>>> time either.
>>
>> You mean frequencies we didn't know about. Bad way to say it. But just
>> because some things were unknown doesn't mean anything at all is
>> possible. You can't milk that one trope forever.
>
>In the Universe anything at all *Is* not only possible, it's probable.
Nope. Since we already understand the main laws of the universe we can
say you are wrong on that.
>
>>
>>> Then, science developed a way to test for them. Clearly showing that
>>> man's perception is limited and therefore science will be limited
>>> until it can discover the necessary tests for the supernatural and
>>> God.
>>>
>>> But some of you persist anyway and make the extraordinary claim:
>>> "We cannot test for God therefore there is No God"
>>
>> Name one person who has said this.
>
>Go to Google groups, enter: God, evidence, existence and see what you
>can get.
Nope. YOU provide the names, and a link. You are the one claiming it.
>
>>
>>> You do this with full knowledge that a test may be developed some day
>>> that will show the supernatural ---just like the one that found the
>>> non-existent sound frequencies
>>>
>>> You have now made an extraordinary claim.
>>>
>>> Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
>>>
>>> Where is your evidence there is no God?
>>
>> Why is that an extraordinary claim? It seems to me that god is more
>> extraordinary than no god.
>
>What are you talking about and where is the sense or logic in what you said?
Poor little dimwit.
>
>Anyway, the evidence isn't that there is no
>> god, which is impossible to show. Merely that there is no god of the
>> sort claimed by most religions, and particularly of the sort claimed by
>> creationists.
>
>And what kind of God do you "believe" exists and why is he better than
>"mine" and what the frig are you mumbling about there?
I don't believe any god exists, except in fiction.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Hey. Don't blame moi` because you are an unedcuated freak of nature
>that only has the capacity to understand your coloring books.
Talking about yourself again Mudbrain?
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 26, 6:38�am, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 6:18�am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > John Harshman wrote:
>> > > All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > >> Some of you morons assume because science cannot "test" for God that
>> > >> God must not exist or, that God does not apply to science. This
>> > >> despite eyewitness accounts, textual evidence and other anecdotal data
>> > >> that shows He does; And, despite the fact that God created science in
>> > >> the first place.
>>
>> > > What eyewitness accounts?
>>
>> > What eyewitness accounts?
>>
>> > � What textual evidence?
>>
>> > What textual evidence? The best we have that can be qualified as textual
>> > evidence is something called Scripture.
>>
>> > � What makes you think
>>
>> > > any of those stories are reliable evidence of anything?
>>
>> > What makes you think that "science", which is nothing but an endeavor of
>> > humans to try and describe nature with their limited abilities they
>> > possess is reliable? I could understand your question if science was
>> > complete and if most things were known and predictable.
>>
>> > As it stands, little has changed in our state of knowledge and one of
>> > the best things science can do is be used as a tool to promote ideologies.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sorry, but this last is so unbelievably silly that I cannot help but
>> comment. �If indeed you believe that �'little has changed in our state
>> of knowledge' �in the 1600 years since Scripture was canonized, simply
>> consider surgery without anesthesia. �I also note that within the last
>> couple of months we discovered an Earth-sized extra-solar planet with
>> water in the atmosphere (GJ1214b; see Nature 462, 853-854 (17 December
>> 2009)). �Consider the knowledge necessary to construct the technology
>> required to do this. �Consider the understanding of nature required to
>> determine atmospheric composition of a planet �42 light years away.
>> Or consider the 50,000 Filipinos who won't be buried in ash when Mayon
>> volcano goes blooey because of what we know about predicting volcanic
>> eruptions (for other examples of this, look at the eruption of Rabaul
>> about ten years back - two deaths out of thousands saved because of
>> adequate warning of an impending eruption). �Then compare this to the
>> state of knowledge in the later Roman Empire, for example. �Then shut
>> up.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Such nonsense. This is the problem with science today. It has become
>bloated with self importance and corrupt.
>
> Those Filipinos you mention have evacuated 3x's and now the
>government cannot get them to leave for 4th time because of false
>warnings. What good is a warning when it is false?
You mean like every single warning in the bible.
>It was not until
>the people saw the lava trickling out that they began to evacuate. And
>this is in the Pacific ''Ring of Fire,'' where volcanic activity and
>earthquakes are common. What would the predictions be like elsewhere,
>where volcano's are not common?
>
>The entire structure of modern America is based on the Roman empire.
You what?
>Buy you seem to think they were backward hicks. The water and road
>structures they built are still there today
Where?
> and will outlast any
>modern structure in America.
What?
> Why is that?
Because you are an idiot.
>Even the Egyptians built structures that will outlast anything build
>with modern technology.
Rubbish.
> In fact, man does not even have a device that
>could build a pyramid.
Total rubbish.
>
>Yeah. We have come a long Long LONG way; haven't we?
Yes, we sure have.
>
>Here is a clue.
You don't have one.
> As long as you remove God from any of the scientific
>endeavors man seeks, then the findings will be incomplete or useless.
If you include god in then the findings will be false.
>What practical purpose does it serve to spend so much money to find a
>planet with water on it but the thing is so far away that we have no
>means to travel to it?
Yet.
> All the while we need solutions on earth to so
>many of mankind's problems. The motivation for finding such planets is
>to suggest that God did not create life but rather life just
>spontaneously arose from lifeless matter.
We already know that is how life happened. The reason we look to the
stars is to gain knowledge. We want to know things. We do not want to
remain ignorant like you.
>
>Compare this to a science that assumed God exists first,
Such a thing would not be science.
> followed his
>suggestions that we look out for one another, and would be seeking for
>all of the solutions we need on earth instead of useless planets we
>cannot travel to.
>
>Then shut up.
Oh please do.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>If textual evidences were accepted then the God creationists mention
>is the same exact God in most religions.
>
Evidence?
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.