Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jesusdpm on 05/09/2008 13:03:55
-
A Prodigious Mind behind the numbers !!!
This link will leave something unprecedented !!!
In this blog does not sell anything, nor do any advertising or donation is requested in order not to hamper the dissemination of Truth.
WARNINGS Anyone who obstructs or make impediment in the dissemination of the contents of this blog, will be safely accused of Divine Justice
[Link removed - see below]
Thank you
-
We have asked you before not to post topics that contain nothing but a link to another site. The link will be removed, and should you wish to discuss the science of your suggestion you are welcome to do so.
I'll start the discussion for you. In my opinion, numbers have no religious significance.
-
We have asked you before not to post topics that contain nothing but a link to another site. The link will be removed, and should you wish to discuss the science of your suggestion you are welcome to do so.
I'll start the discussion for you. In my opinion, numbers have no religious significance.
I beg to differ Ben..I have ONE bible acting as a very good doorstop ! [;)]
-
I wonder if there is a book about this, 101 uses for a bible!
-
I wonder if there is a book about this, 101 uses for a bible!
If there is, I'm sure it's a book of revelations !! *groan*
-
what do you get if you cross and atheist and a Jehovah's witness?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.
-
what do you get if you cross and atheist and a Jehovah's witness?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.
LOL!
Revelations has the only number in the bible that has any religious significance, 666, 665 or 616 which is meant to be the number of the beast depending on which version you read.
But, as we now have 3 choices it shows that none of it makes any sense.
-
You cannot prove the existence of God just like you cannot disprove the existence of God
Case closed
-
However we can disprove the bible !
The earth was not created in 7 days. Either that or carbon dating doesent work at all. Humm who do i believe !
Moses well parting the red sea is disputable !
God killed the first born children sent wave after wave of plagues, personally Adolf seems quite mild in comparison !
One of my favorites Adam and Eve, two sons, I mean INSEST!
Quote Pen and Teller " The best way to dismiss the bible as fiction is to read it ! "
-
Jesusdpm came back and posted the same link again. He's now been banned and the site blacklisted. Does this mean I will now be "safely accused of Divine Justice"?
WARNINGS Anyone who obstructs or make impediment in the dissemination of the contents of this blog, will be safely accused of Divine Justice
-
Revelations has the only number in the bible that has any religious significance, 666, 665 or 616 which is meant to be the number of the beast depending on which version you read.
Didn't 665 refer to the neighbour of the beast? And wasn't 616 five floors down?
-
Try this:
89(666 x Ω)-(616 + 959r)6 / ^^β x 11.88% = ???
Now, what does that tell you? (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fconfused013.gif&hash=ed3818bc8dbafbed325b0ab5d74c215c) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
-
Try this:
89(666 x Ω)-(616 + 959r)6 / ^^β x 11.88% = ???
Now, what does that tell you? (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fconfused013.gif&hash=ed3818bc8dbafbed325b0ab5d74c215c) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
It tells me you hace too much time on your hands.
1010011010
The binary representation of the beast.
-
However we can disprove the bible !
The earth was not created in 7 days. Either that or carbon dating doesent work at all. Humm who do i believe !
One day represents 1000 years
-
The Earth was still not formed in 7000 years.
-
Try this:
89(666 x Ω)-(616 + 959r)6 / ^^β x 11.88% = ???
Now, what does that tell you? (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fconfused013.gif&hash=ed3818bc8dbafbed325b0ab5d74c215c) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
It tells me you hace too much time on your hands.
1010011010
The binary representation of the beast.
Yes, BC, but you worked it out (unless you knew that already? Surely not!)
-
In gods eyes a single act of lieing makes you a liar. And there are none good but god. It says this in the bible so it must be true. So a single act of good like helping the poor should make me good, just as telling a lie makes me a liar.
But there are none good but god, THEREFORE I AM GOD!
I stole this from Thunderf00t of youtube, He has some very good videos.
-
If God can't tell the difference between 1 day and 1000 years then He's clearly too dumb to be worth getting up early on a Sunday (or any other day) to worship.
-
If God can't tell the difference between 1 day and 1000 years then He's clearly too dumb to be worth getting up early on a Sunday (or any other day) to worship.
Guys calm down. Have you ever read Isaiah 40:26?
]“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing."
Tell me that Einstein was the first to put E=mc^2 on paper? It's been there all along. 'These things' or matter were created due to the abundance of dynamic energy.
We don't have an atom's size of knowledge about the universe.
Don't get confused about the word 'day'. We use it quite differently from time to time. So the day you finally understand this doesn't mean it's going to take 24 hours to understand, not a second more or a second less.
Now talking of creation. If you ask someone with no education whatsoever, they would never guess the correct order of events of creation. That's what the 7 days description talks about. It's about the order of events. And they are to the point.
-
So, if we pick the bits we like and reinterpret the other bits in our favour then that constitutes proof, does it?
And who were these guys "with no education"? That's an incredibly arrogant way of describing highly intelligent and well educated philosophers. Do you really think they hadn't done a lot of thinking about what was needed and when? Just because they hadn't modern Science to help them, how could they not tell that they would need light and water and land and plants and animals before there could be US?
If there really were to be a God, how can you possibly think that you could 'prove' its existence with the paltry capabilities of the human brain. Just say "I believe", if it makes you feel better, and leave it at that. Trying to prove it will always be a bummer.
-
In the beginning was a chasm, a void, called Ginnungagap. To the north was Niflheim, a place of ice & snow. To the south was Muspelheim, made from fire. The first being came into existence from the drop of water caused by the ice of Niflheim meeting the fire of Muspelheim. This first being was a frost giant named Ymir.
From somewhere unspecified arose a race of frost giants. Ymir fathered a son who was nourished by Audumla, the cosmic cow. Audumla fed herself by licking salty rimestone until it was in the shape of a man. This stone man was named Buri.
Buri fathered a son, Bor, who married the giantess Bestla; daughter of Boltha. Bor & Bestla fathered the first gods Odin, Vili and Ve.
Ymir grew so large that the 3 gods killed him. So much blood poured from his wounds that nearly all the frost giants drowned. Odin and the other 2 gods then formed the universe from Ymir's body, placing the body over Ginnungagap. From his flesh they made the Earth and from his blood, the seas. His skull, supported by 4 dwarves, became the heavens. From Ymir's eyebrows they fashioned Midgard, a place for humans to live. Sparks from Muspelheim were used to create the sun, moon & stars.
I think that's a much nicer creation story. Anyone care to disprove it? [:D]
-
Errr... what ever happened to getting an intelligent head? [:D]
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19945.msg223835#msg223835
-
So, if we pick the bits we like and reinterpret the other bits in our favour then that constitutes proof, does it?
And who were these guys "with no education"? That's an incredibly arrogant way of describing highly intelligent and well educated philosophers.
What then are the bits I shouldn't like? The example I gave from Isaiah is not just a 'bit' of information. That is high level physics. Einstein receives so much praise for saying it but when I show you from the bible you conclude it's not so amazing.
Be honest. If I showed you that the bible may also be talking of an expanding universe would that be more amazing?
Or that it told of a round earth thousands of years before Gagarin went into space or Magellan around the globe. Would that impress you more.
Somehow I doubt it would impress you because you believe in science, and you wrongly think it contradicts the bible.
I wish you could say exactly what makes you not believe in a creator.
No hard feelings. [8D]
-
...The example I gave from Isaiah is not just a 'bit' of information. That is high level physics. Einstein receives so much praise for saying it but when I show you from the bible you conclude it's not so amazing.
The bit you quoted was neither information or high-level physics. It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.
Be honest. If I showed you that the bible may also be talking of an expanding universe would that be more amazing?
Or that it told of a round earth thousands of years before Gagarin went into space or Magellan around the globe. Would that impress you more.
Somehow I doubt it would impress you because you believe in science, and you wrongly think it contradicts the bible.
The bible doesn't talk about science, it sticks to allusion, which is so open to interpretation as to make it meaningless in any absolute sense. Incidentally, both the ancient Greeks and Asian Indians thought that the Earth was spherical.
The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant. Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof. Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.
I wish you could say exactly what makes you not believe in a creator
The lack of evidence for one.
-
Errr... what ever happened to getting an intelligent head? [:D]
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19945.msg223835#msg223835
So showing that I know the Norse creation myth is not a demonstration of my intelligent head in action? Maybe you would like me to post it in another language as a further demonstration?
No começo era uma falha, um vácuo, chamado Ginnungagap. Ao norte era Niflheim, um lugar do & do gelo; neve. Ao sul era Muspelheim, feito do fogo. Primeiro ser entrou a existência da gota da água causada pelo gelo de Niflheim que encontra o fogo de Muspelheim. Este primeiro ser era uma geada Ymir nomeado gigante.
Em algum lugar de não especificado levantou-se uma raça de gigantes da geada. Ymir genou um filho que fosse nutrido por Audumla, a vaca cósmica. Audumla alimentou-se lambendo o rimestone salgado até que estêve na forma de um homem. Este homem de pedra foi nomeado Buri.
Buri genou um filho, Bor, que casou o giantess Bestla; filha de Boltha. & de Bor; Bestla genou os primeiros deuses Odin, Vili e Ve.
Ymir cresceu tão grande que os 3 deuses o mataram. Tanto o sangue derramou de suas feridas que quase todos os gigantes da geada afogaram. Odin e outros 2 deuses deram forma então ao universo de Ymir' corpo de s, coloc o corpo sobre Ginnungagap. De sua carne fizeram a terra e de seu sangue, os mares. Seu crânio, suportado por 4 anões, transformou-se os céus. De Ymir' as sobrancelhas de s formaram Midgard, um lugar para que os seres humanos vivam. As faíscas de Muspelheim foram usadas para criar o sol, & da lua; estrelas
-
It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.
It says in clear terms that matter resulted from energy. No 2 ways about it.
The bible doesn't talk about science, it sticks to allusion, which is so open to interpretation as to make it meaningless in any absolute sense. Incidentally, both the ancient Greeks and Asian Indians thought that the Earth was spherical.
You must have heard interpretations from guys who don't really know the bible. About Indians, it is common knowledge that they believed in an elephant with a turtle on it's back on whose back was the earth. Even just 500 years ago people were afraid of falling over the edge. And Philosophy was quite hot then.
The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant. Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof. Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.
Not true
The lack of evidence for one.
You exist as proof. Singularity if it existed must have come from somewhere. Isaiah explains where.
-
The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant. Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof. Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.
So if you believed in God and then 1 day he provided absolute proof of his existence, would you necessarily cease to be religious?
Consider this. Little peasant in his cottage in the Middle Ages. He has been told all his life that his country is ruled by a king and believes that to be true even though he has never seen him. Like many other serfs, he is a royalist. Then, one day, the king (uh huh huh) comes a-calling. Maybe he fancies a scoop of ale. But whatever the reason for his visit, there he is in front of little peasant person. Little cottage-dwelling paean now knows the king exists because there he is in little man's favourite chair.
Erm... I've forgotten where I was going with this. I'll come back to it in a while unless someone else can determine the point I was trying to make. Blame the medication! [xx(]
-
It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.
It says in clear terms that matter resulted from energy. No 2 ways about it.
Here's another interpretation from the same words - he had lots of energy (which almost certainly had a different meaning in biblical times) so he was able to make lots of things. Just because an interpretation (fit around modern knowledge) fits, doesn't mean it was the intended one and doesn't suggest that the bible contains encrypted scientific knowledge.
The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant. Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof. Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.
Not true
In what way is it not true? Which part of that are you dismissing?
I think there are semantics at issue here - for example, I believe my cat will be at home to greet me, based on my experience and evidence of the past, but it may not come to be true - likewise, I can have faith that my cup of tea will taste nice, based on my previous knowledge of tea.
Doc - I think I know what you are getting at - it's a definitions thing though - technically, once I can confirm that the cat is at home, or my tea is refreshing and good, I no longer believe it, I just know.
The lack of evidence for one.
You exist as proof. Singularity if it existed must have come from somewhere. Isaiah explains where.
Nope, it doesn't. You have interpreted it in such a way that allows you to think it did. Don't forget the bible has been translated, altered and translated many times since it's inception, and so nobody knows the original intent behind the words.
And do you mean LeeE existing is proof of the bible being correct?, or proof that god exists?
Because he is neither.
Here's the nub of it though - there doesn't need to be a why. We don't know what came before the big bang, and perhaps we never will. But that gap doesn't need to be filled with a deity.
Doc - I much prefer the Norse creation myth in English, thanks - it's a good one, isn't it?
-
The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant. Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof. Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.
So if you believed in God and then 1 day he provided absolute proof of his existence, would you necessarily cease to be religious?
Consider this. Little peasant in his cottage in the Middle Ages. He has been told all his life that his country is ruled by a king and believes that to be true even though he has never seen him. Like many other serfs, he is a royalist. Then, one day, the king (uh huh huh) comes a-calling. Maybe he fancies a scoop of ale. But whatever the reason for his visit, there he is in front of little peasant person. Little cottage-dwelling paean now knows the king exists because there he is in little man's favourite chair.
Erm... I've forgotten where I was going with this. I'll come back to it in a while unless someone else can determine the point I was trying to make. Blame the medication! [xx(]
If you change the scenario to the South American Indians and the arrival of the Spanish, then you have another story; maybe the same ending; I don't know where you're going with your story.
-
Doc - I think I know what you are getting at - it's a definitions thing though - technically, once I can confirm that the cat is at home, or my tea is refreshing and good, I no longer believe it, I just know.
Ben - I was addressing the assertion that religion is based on belief not knowledge. If I have absolute proof of God, definitive knowledge of God, can I not still be religious?
Vern - I was trying to construct an analogy about belief, knowledge & religion but lost my way. These tablets make my head spin and I sometimes find it hard to concentrate.
-
I know what you mean Doc, I get that way even without tablets. [:)]
-
Doctor Beaver is right.
I recognize this description, therefore it must be true.
Excuse me while i feed my Bear...
*Sails away, his third head happily nodding in the wind *
---
Ah, Polar Bear...
Oh yes.
-
Here's the nub of it though - there doesn't need to be a why. We don't know what came before the big bang, and perhaps we never will. But that gap doesn't need to be filled with a deity.
There has to be a why. As scientists, we always ask why. There is a design to everything that we study. That's the only way we can know them. Take the electron, in a normal atom it orbits the nucleus without falling into it. Automatically we ask what question...?
So how come when we know the closest answer to a question may be God. We stop asking 'why?'.
Even to understand the most chaotic of astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes or quasars we look for organization.
Even the big bang would not have resulted into the universe had it not taken place with the particular precision that is practically impossible without design.
No wonder God asks: "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding"
-
I think there are semantics at issue here - for example, I believe my cat will be at home to greet me, based on my experience and evidence of the past, but it may not come to be true - likewise, I can have faith that my cup of tea will taste nice, based on my previous knowledge of tea.
You probably have faith that this is the year 2009. But you have no knowledge that this is about the number of years since Christ's being born on earth.
-
Here's another interpretation from the same words - he had lots of energy (which almost certainly had a different meaning in biblical times)
Different meaning as in what? We as well as the old timers only understand energy from the results of it's interaction with matter. We also don't know what it is.
-
But then again, God created humans not for him to be an object of scrutiny. We are too insignificant. So it remains a question of faith. If the bible was a science book then we would discuss in those terms. But it is not.
The best evidence of his existence is all around us. In the precision, foresight, intelligence that went into creation which on earth only man can understand because he was created to have those characteristics to a smaller degree.
Evidence is also in the very fact that something so obvious can escape people who spend years studying it. It's like physical matter has a hidden code that you need only wisdom to understand.
The universe is so perfectly fine tuned that it's precision seems impossible considering that it may have started in a super massive bang. (I'm not arguing the big bang). Actually, even the rate of expansion of the early universe was very highly fine tuned.
If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life
That's a quotation from Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell.
There is even more intricate fine tuning in the four fundamental forces but I won't go into that.
-
demadone
The example I gave from Isaiah is not just a 'bit' of information. That is high level physics.
Could you tell me the 'high level Physics' content of that quote?
It just says that the stars look breathtaking and someone very superior must have made them. There is no proof included with that statement, as far as I can see.
If you simply say "I believe", then there is no counter argument. Once you start trying to bring in 'proof' then you are on to a loser. I have not seen one yet and your arguments are just assertions - not proofs.
-
Two alternative models:
1. God made everything. Nothing made God. God was always there .
2. The Universe can be regarded as starting at a certain 'time', long ago. Time, itself only 'started' 'when' the Universe formed. There must have been something outside / before our Universe. The Universe exists within itself. The notion of 'outside' implies the ideas of 'before' and 'elsewhere' but it would be less of a problem to refer to it as 'NOT Universe'; that way, you needn't use our particular dimensions, which cannot describe the larger situation adequately.
The first model sustains itself because it puts off the main question of the 'before'. Before God there was God - for ever - without limit. You can't ask the question, in fact.
The second model actually is much harder to consider. It involves 'outside' rather than before and there are dimensions to consider. The outside has no limit.
So they both involve no limits (despite the BBT). One is surprisingly like the model of a parent. Not surprisingly, perhaps.
The other is very, very hard and requires all of the effort to be made by the student. There is no cosy feeling that, however far along the road you go, there is someone to deal with the imponderables.
I'm not ever surprised that people choose the first model. I am not even surprised that they fight tooth and nail to keep it intact. The other way is so scary.
It's such a pity that they try to prove it.
-
Here's the nub of it though - there doesn't need to be a why. We don't know what came before the big bang, and perhaps we never will. But that gap doesn't need to be filled with a deity.
There has to be a why. As scientists, we always ask why. There is a design to everything that we study. That's the only way we can know them. Take the electron, in a normal atom it orbits the nucleus without falling into it. Automatically we ask what question...?
So how come when we know the closest answer to a question may be God. We stop asking 'why?'.
Don't most scientists ask 'how'?
I think there are semantics at issue here - for example, I believe my cat will be at home to greet me, based on my experience and evidence of the past, but it may not come to be true - likewise, I can have faith that my cup of tea will taste nice, based on my previous knowledge of tea.
You probably have faith that this is the year 2009. But you have no knowledge that this is about the number of years since Christ's being born on earth.
Actually, I accept that we call it 2009 for convenience - if I was still living in Thailand, it would be the year 2552.
But then again, God created humans not for him to be an object of scrutiny. We are too insignificant. So it remains a question of faith. If the bible was a science book then we would discuss in those terms. But it is not.
The best evidence of his existence is all around us. In the precision, foresight, intelligence that went into creation which on earth only man can understand because he was created to have those characteristics to a smaller degree.
Evidence is also in the very fact that something so obvious can escape people who spend years studying it. It's like physical matter has a hidden code that you need only wisdom to understand.
The universe is so perfectly fine tuned that it's precision seems impossible considering that it may have started in a super massive bang. (I'm not arguing the big bang). Actually, even the rate of expansion of the early universe was very highly fine tuned.
If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life
That's a quotation from Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell.
There is even more intricate fine tuning in the four fundamental forces but I won't go into that.
This is not evidence for god, it is merely how you seek to validate your belief - why do you feel your belief needs validation? If you believe in a loving god, and that gives you some comfort, why should you care about what's actually, objectively, 'true'?
I think the only thing we can safely conclude from all of this is that you choose to believe in your god, and I do not. There is no objective evidence for a god/some gods, and so there is no reason for me to accept the existence of a god as fact. I do, however, accept that you are welcome to beleive what ever you like, and I hope this brings you happiness.
-
However we can disprove the bible !
The earth was not created in 7 days. Either that or carbon dating doesent work at all. Humm who do i believe !
Moses well parting the red sea is disputable !
God killed the first born children sent wave after wave of plagues, personally Adolf seems quite mild in comparison !
One of my favorites Adam and Eve, two sons, I mean INSEST!
Quote Pen and Teller " The best way to dismiss the bible as fiction is to read it ! "
Our scientists are more powerfull from God, since they say "universe created in a time less than a second" (from zero to E+25m radius)
Same six days mistake (if it is) repeated in Quran also.
10:Yunus
3- Verily your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established Himself on the Throne. Regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?
However we can disprove the bible !
The earth was not created in 7 days. Either that or carbon dating doesent work at all. Humm who do i believe !
One day represents 1000 years
Time is relative, so it could not be said one day is 1000 years or 50000 years unless you have corelation between them according to different observers.
32 - The Adoration
5- He directs the affairs from the heavens to the earth: then it ascends unto Him, on a Day, the measure of which is a thousand years of your reckoning. (one day = 1000 years)
70 - The Ways Of Ascent
4- The angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years: (one day = 50000 years)
And one important point, you could not measure the thing, if your measuring device exsisted after. So the meaning of day may not be an earth day.
And also meaning of the earth day at the begining could be different from our present day.
-
So if you believed in God and then 1 day he provided absolute proof of his existence, would you necessarily cease to be religious?
Would you agree that being religious is basing your understanding of reality upon the existence of a hypothetical God, or pantheon of deities, who through powers and abilities unknown direct everything that happens in that reality? Or perhaps you might define religion as the adoption of the policies, dictated by the religion that you follow, that direct how you should live your life?
In either case, the only difference between religion and say, football or politics, is that football teams and political parties actually exist. Once a deity is known to exist, then it becomes more like football or politics, except that for most religions there's only one team to support, or party to vote for.
Regarding your little peasant sitting in his hovel; while he may not have seen him first-hand before, even today, and with a total population that's likely to be many times greater than in your example, the six degrees of separation is still largely thought to hold true so although he might not have seen the king, he wouldn't need to go through many links before he met someone else who had. This doesn't apply to deities though.
-
Incidentally, both the ancient Greeks and Asian Indians thought that the Earth was spherical.
You must have heard interpretations from guys who don't really know the bible. About Indians, it is common knowledge that they believed in an elephant with a turtle on it's back on whose back was the earth. Even just 500 years ago people were afraid of falling over the edge. And Philosophy was quite hot then.
It is clear to me that you've done nothing to check the veracity of what I've said. If you had done so you would have been able to find out for yourself that the "guys who don't really know the bible" and who think that the ancient Greeks and Indians were aware that the Earth is round are the archaeologists who have found the evidence for it. Similarly, claiming that it is "common knowledge" and therefore an established fact beyond doubt, that Indians believed in the turtle scenario just shows that you don't even want to find out whether it's true or not, just as a minority of people today still persist in believing in the existence of a deity for which there is no evidence, let alone proof. And are you really claiming that everyone thought that the Earth was flat 500 years ago? Once again, there's clear evidence to show otherwise.
Incidentally, I have read the Christian bible, both the old and new bits but I prefer The Lord of the Rings; it has a better plot, believable characters and is more plausible.
-
So if you believed in God and then 1 day he provided absolute proof of his existence, would you necessarily cease to be religious?
Would you agree that being religious is basing your understanding of reality upon the existence of a hypothetical God, or pantheon of deities, who through powers and abilities unknown direct everything that happens in that reality?
I would alter that slightly to read "...hypothetical, or proven God..."
Or perhaps you might define religion as the adoption of the policies, dictated by the religion that you follow, that direct how you should live your life?
Religions do indeed dictate how you should live your life.
In either case, the only difference between religion and say, football or politics, is that football teams and political parties actually exist. Once a deity is known to exist, then it becomes more like football or politics, except that for most religions there's only one team to support, or party to vote for.
But would that stop you being religious? Would you not adopt the view that your religion had been proven to be correct?
Regarding your little peasant sitting in his hovel; while he may not have seen him first-hand before, even today, and with a total population that's likely to be many times greater than in your example, the six degrees of separation is still largely thought to hold true so although he might not have seen the king, he wouldn't need to go through many links before he met someone else who had. This doesn't apply to deities though.
Yes, it does apply to deities. Throughout history many people have claimed to have seen or communed with dieties. But we only have their word for it in the same way the peasant would have to accept the veracity of someone saying he had seen the monarch.
In fact the majority of the Old Testament and the Koran were written by men who claimed to have been told what they wrote either directly by a diety or by one of his messengers.
-
But would that stop you being religious?
I think it would change the meaning of religion. Either way, something would change as a consequence.
Regarding the peasant: you can't meet deities if they don't exist.
-
When I was about 10 years old I noticed that people generally accepted the religion that prevailed where they lived. Different societies had different religions. At first I thought that only one of those could be correct. That meant that most of them must be incorrect. Then it came to me. All of them are incorrect.
So that left me with: Maybe there is a deity out there that made everything happen. But if there is, no one has correctly described just exactly how that deity worked it all out. The least accurate of the attempts seem to be the various accounts of creation.
-
Religions do indeed dictate how you should live your life.
Not all religions teach the same thing so it would be unfair to generalize.
The bible says it is wrong to sleep with a woman/man you are not married to. But you will probably say it is just dictation. But who makes such rules? Don't say it is man because the instinct is break those barriers. What about murder being wrong? Survival of the fittest makes that the easier way out.
I know that the one who made those rules also made conscience so we know when we are going wrong. There is no way that could come about through evolution.
I'm not out to convince you, but just to share my thoughts.
Does anyone know how magic works if there is no spiritual realm? Not all of it is tricks. A good example is floating a person in air. Actually it's easier to see evidence of the devil than that of God, because God would never make himself obvious.
-
Religions do indeed dictate how you should live your life.
Not all religions teach the same thing so it would be unfair to generalize.
They don't all teach the same thing, but they do all state how one should live one's life.
The bible says it is wrong to sleep with a woman/man you are not married to. But you will probably say it is just dictation. But who makes such rules? Don't say it is man because the instinct is break those barriers. What about murder being wrong? Survival of the fittest makes that the easier way out.
Adam and Eve weren't married and they had 2 sons.
I know that the one who made those rules also made conscience so we know when we are going wrong. There is no way that could come about through evolution.
No, you dno't know that, you believe it to be so. Conscience came about as a result of rules. WIthout rules there would be no need for conscience. You can put that down to societal evolution.
Does anyone know how magic works if there is no spiritual realm?
No-one knows.
Actually it's easier to see evidence of the devil than that of God, because God would never make himself obvious.
Why wouldn't he? He wants people to worship him so wouldn't it make more sense to show himself and give a demonstratin of his power?
The problem I have with religious people is the constant "It has to be this" or "There is no other way". The thing is it doesn't have to be this and there are other ways; ways that have been scientifically proven. But you refuse to accept that fact. Biblical words are re-interpreted in the light of scientific advances and the religious fraternity say that proves God exists. No, it doesn't. It just proves that the original wording was ambiguous and can mean many different things - or nothing at all.
-
Does anyone know how magic works if there is no spiritual realm? Not all of it is tricks. A good example is floating a person in air. Actually it's easier to see evidence of the devil than that of God, because God would never make himself obvious.
Wow ! I did not even know that magic is real. Shows how much I know [:)]
-
It's quite strange to think that so many people say 'I have faith in God'
If a complete stranger told you to have faith in the ancient Egyptian God 'Amun Ra', or the Viking God 'Odin', or the ancient Greek God 'Zeus', would you?
No.
Yet a complete stranger tells you to have faith in Jehova, Allah or whatever you want to call him, and you do. Is this simply because his name is Abraham?
You do not have faith in 'God', you have faith in Abraham. So would you have faith in him if he told you to have faith in 'Jupiter' King of the Roman Gods?
-
Quite so Don. They have atheistic pursuits towards Odin, Thor, Ra, Isis, Anubis; I just choose to go one step further. They deny the existence of 99.999% of all other "gods", so why stop at the last step?
-
I don't know if there are a God.
But I knew that some of the best, warmest and trustworthy people I've had the pleasure to know had had a very personal belief in God.
I also know that some of the worst people have asserted the same belief.
But 'time' will tell, as Bob Marley once wrote:)
That, as most other important questions in our life, are mostly 'ethical' after all.
Why should we care for whatever conditions 'food' animals have before we butcher them.
They're just food, right:)
And why not eat all meat, humans included?
Meat is meat, right?
And why care for someone you don't know?
Do they?
Care about you.
But if you take those 'responsibilities' away from us, as I see it, we will be 'lower' than any other animal we ever will meet.
Most of what we do to each other is grounded in 'beliefs' not in 'facts'.
That's what makes us grow, and at times, 'shrink' horribly.
To be a human human is not easy:)
-
Adam and Eve weren't married and they had 2 sons.
Weird. Try to read the bible again.
Conscience came about as a result of rules.
My point exactly. The universe is made on rules. And you can't deny that. Rules that have been set.
The problem I have with religious people is the constant "It has to be this" or "There is no other way". The thing is it doesn't have to be this and there are other ways; ways that have been scientifically proven. But you refuse to accept that fact. Biblical words are re-interpreted in the light of scientific advances and the religious fraternity say that proves God exists. No, it doesn't. It just proves that the original wording was ambiguous and can mean many different things - or nothing at all.
Yet again a generalization. Not all religions stick to the old belief. Some do admit that they misinterpreted the bible. I don't argue the big bang for example or stick to the belief that everything was made in 7 days. The guys who try to argue with these are the ones that taint religion (another work of the devil).
Social evolution would not result into such love, kindness and morality. People don't have those tenancies naturally.
Science and religion (true) are very compatible and mutual. Science helps us to understand God better. Religion fills in the blanks where science can't go like death, life, the beginning and human nature. or even magic.
-
To be a human human is not easy:)
Hi yor_on; I have concluded that you are one. [:)] If not more.
Brotherly love is a human trait I suspect. I doubt that deities are the inspiration for it.
-
So are you Vern :)
Most of us are i believe.
Sometimes we don't know it ourself:)
We just need to be tested.
And we all will get 'tested' at times.
So maybe there is a human 'arrow' too?
Getting us closer to 'humanity'.
When I was in Goa I meet this Indian guy who gave me a new angle to the problem.
He separated between what he called humans, and 'real humans'.
Sounds stupid perhaps, but there and then, it was quite a revelation for me.
As it made sense, we are all humans, but it takes something more to become a 'real human'.
Will or a need or something, but there is a difference, I think?
-
Wow ! I did not even know that magic is real. Shows how much I know
I live in Africa. Trust me, it is real. Not only the bunny out of hat type but sometimes really weird. You don't see it everyday and with the world's advancements it is getting less and less. But their are undeniable instances.
-
First or 'second hand' instances demadone?
-
I live in Africa. Trust me, it is real. Not only the bunny out of hat type but sometimes really weird. You don't see it everyday and with the world's advancements it is getting less and less. But their are undeniable instances.
That reminds me of the time when I was standing out in an open field, when suddenly, quick as a flash, the sky clouded over and a great rumbling happened. A beautiful man figure appeared, young and strong looking just floating there before me. His voice was so strong and compelling that one immediately knew they must obey.
He said, "Design me a universe, engineer, and don't make it complicated. It shall consist of nothing save empty space and my electric and magnetic phenomena."
"Yes Sir," I said, dropping to my knees.
Then He was gone. I designed that universe. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0) Then God moved all existing humanity into it, and here we are now.
Now; was that real? Or is there some experiment that anyone can devise that will show that I was just dreaming, and we can not possibly be in that universe that I designed for the Almighty?
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fbowing%2F2.gif&hash=bcb35f58b56db9f8918c773ad3ccccd7)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fbowing%2F2.gif&hash=bcb35f58b56db9f8918c773ad3ccccd7)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fbowing%2F2.gif&hash=bcb35f58b56db9f8918c773ad3ccccd7)
I BELIEVE OH GREAT ONE, I shall go forth and tell all mankind (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Freligous%2F3.gif&hash=a213d1837fc2a6b5d7fc1771a297dcd4)
-
[;D] [;D] [;D] [::)] [::)] [::)]
-
My point exactly. The universe is made on rules. And you can't deny that. Rules that have been set.
Demadone.
What do you mean by "set"? Just because things behave consistently doesn't have to imply that 'someone' designed it that way. Your's is only one possible interpretation of the situation. It's many years since Scientists treated Laws of Science as Laws of God.
Religion fills in the blanks where science can't go like death, life, the beginning and human nature. or even magic.
Precisely. If you find it too hard to understand, then put it down to God. A little while ago, God was used to explain many more unknowns.
-
Why do so many Atheists make a religion out of their Atheism?
What makes them so twitchy about a God?
I think it's because of what has been called the 'God Gene'. Whether rational or irrational, we have all evolved with a need for a Jimminy Cricket to regulate our behaviour. Atheists also have a Jimminy Cricket but it gives us an internal conflict; you have to acknowledge the need to 'be good' but can't allow yourself to be told, on religious grounds, how to behave. It needs a lot of intellectual effort to be a true non-religious atheist.
So no atheist should be surprised that there a people who believe in a God; it's by far the easiest way to be.
-
I don't know why some folks do that; I don't do that. When I am in church, I try my best to look just like all the other happy true believers. I don't advocate either way.
About the only time I will be there is at funerals and weddings [:)]
-
Why do so many Atheists make a religion out of their Atheism?
What makes them so twitchy about a God?
I think it's because of what has been called the 'God Gene'. Whether rational or irrational, we have all evolved with a need for a Jimminy Cricket to regulate our behaviour. Atheists also have a Jimminy Cricket but it gives us an internal conflict; you have to acknowledge the need to 'be good' but can't allow yourself to be told, on religious grounds, how to behave. It needs a lot of intellectual effort to be a true non-religious atheist.
So no atheist should be surprised that there a people who believe in a God; it's by far the easiest way to be.
I'm not sure what you mean by that post.
Are you suggesting that people need religion to be good? That is certainly untrue.
If you are also asking why atheists becme irritated by religious nonsense, I can tell you that in my case it's because it's nonsense, which has the potential to corrupt minds, by blinding them to reason, enforcing ignorance, and in the worst cases, promoting evil deeds in the guise of god's will.
-
So three pages on.What was that mathematical proof again.I don't think it was actually stated was it.
Maybe X+Y=GOD
Cheers
justaskin
-
Stephan
I am saying that we all have strong, built-in, mechanisms which regulate behaviour. How do people explain / rationalize the results of it? They attribute it to an outside agency: God.
It seems to me to be a fair enough interpretation if they don't / can't think it through.
Why get so hot under the collar about it?
I can't be too surprised that they hang on to it like a drowning man.
-
Stephan
I am saying that we all have strong, built-in, mechanisms which regulate behaviour. How do people explain / rationalize the results of it? They attribute it to an outside agency: God.
It seems to me to be a fair enough interpretation if they don't / can't think it through.
That I can agree with. It would be nice if they did think it through though.
-
As an athiest, I have no objection to those who wish to believe in any God. We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.
But I object to those who claim there is a mathematical or scientific proof of the existance of a God. There CANNOT be any such proof and the concept is beyond belief.
2 + 2 = God???
2 atoms H + 1 atom O = God???
E = God???
You might just as well say this:
10gms self raising flour + 10gms castor sugar + 10gms butter + 2 eggs, bake in oven at 180oC for 25 mins = God. IT DOES NOT, it = Victoria Sponge.
2 + 2 = 4
2 atoms H + 1 atom O = Water
E = MC2
-
What makes them so twitchy about a God?
They are religious too. Just that they don't realize that believing that God exists not is also believing. They laugh at the word 'believe' and end up doing the same thing and fight tooth and nail to defend that belief.
If you are also asking why atheists becme irritated by religious nonsense, I can tell you that in my case it's because it's nonsense, which has the potential to corrupt minds, by blinding them to reason, enforcing ignorance, and in the worst cases, promoting evil deeds in the guise of god's will.
A generalization. Not religion teaches nonsense. If only you knew. Sometimes it is the assumption that the only guys who are religious are the ignorant and low level thinkers.
What do you mean by "set"? Just because things behave consistently doesn't have to imply that 'someone' designed it that way.
Rules are always set. Give an example of organization that results from Chaos. Developed nations are only such because of being organized. If rules are not set or followed nothing works well. An example is the global financial crisis.
-
Stephan
I am saying that we all have strong, built-in, mechanisms which regulate behaviour. How do people explain / rationalize the results of it? They attribute it to an outside agency: God.
It seems to me to be a fair enough interpretation if they don't / can't think it through.
That I can agree with. It would be nice if they did think it through though.
That would involve what is referred to as 'formal thought'. Very few humans actually engage in formal thought. Why do you think Football is the main topic of conversation in most groups of humans? Yawn.
Demadone
Yet more circular arguments from you, I'm afraid.
Saying that we 'believe' just because we are thinking about it is totally begging the question. Your model is not the only one which can apply.
Why are rules 'set'?
I have already dealt with the difference between Scientific 'Laws' and the laws which the Church used to say that God imposes.
-
But I object to those who claim there is a mathematical or scientific proof of the existence of a God.
Not to sure what that can mean. I don't think there is any scientific or mathematical proof of anyone's existence. You either know or you don't know. Believe that Hitler existed or don't believe. That Christ existed or didn't. Maths and science are not for proving individuals.
-
Saying that we 'believe' just because we are thinking about it is totally begging the question. Your model is not the only one which can apply.
I find it hard to accept that most of you are 'thinking' about it. To me it's more like you have reached the conclusion. I call it worship because you refuse to think outside the box of what you believe. God is rather obvious when you do. Also I'm not saying worship is sticking to a conclusion because that's the dangerous kind of worship. Sometimes we need to adjust. We adjust if all the dots connect and if there are fewer questions left to be answered.
The foresight exhibited in nature and it's beginning tell of a very intelligent being, which chaos does not.
-
I think someone should initiate a forum dedicated to the argument between religion Vs atheism and creation Vs evolution, where all those who want to try to convert each other can do so, rather than putting up a barrage of such topics on TNS. Do religious forums have a constant barrage from evolutionists and atheists trying to convert them?
-
I think someone should initiate a forum dedicated to the argument between religion Vs atheism and creation Vs evolution, where all those who want to try to convert each other can do so, rather than putting up a barrage of such topics on TNS. Do religious forums have a constant barrage from evolutionists and atheists trying to convert them?
I AGREE! I've already had a comment about this....Don - I guess that you should make a comment in the feedback section....
-
We're trying to answer a beginning. What was there before the singularity. Who made the rules of the universe we live in. The very one's this forum is all about.
-
Why do you think Football is the main topic of conversation in most groups of humans?
Now SC you can slag off those other religions as much as you like but when it comes to slagging off football well thats heresy. [;D]
Cheers
justaskin
-
We're trying to answer a beginning.
No I think we were supposed to be proving the existence of god using mathematics'
What was there before the singularity.
God knows.
Who made the rules of the universe we live in.
God knows
The very one's this forum is all about.
No this forum is about science.Which seems to have been left behind a long time ago in this thread.
Cheers
justaskin
-
Why do you think Football is the main topic of conversation in most groups of humans?
Now SC you can slag off those other religions as much as you like but when it comes to slagging off football well thats heresy. [;D]
Cheers
justaskin
Yes yes - I know it's more serious than life and death!!
I thought it would bring some such reply.
-
Talking football. Everything that starts with 'Ar' is good for Arsenal. Welcome my boy Arshavin.
-
I wish someone could answer my other threads. [???]
-
I read that as "threats".
Am I paranoid?
-
...because God would never make himself obvious.
This is exactly why I don't believe in God/Gods. Why should God/Gods not be obvious? What is the benefit in this?
The only scenario I can see that fits this is that we are being tested for gullibility. If God designed and created all of us, (s)he should be well aware of what we're capable of, so what's the point in testing? Although now that I think about it again, perhaps it's a form of quality control where, having designed us to use reason, we're being checked to make sure it was installed and works properly. [;)]
-
Although now that I think about it again, perhaps it's a form of quality control where, having designed us to use reason, we're being checked to make sure it was installed and works properly. wink
Yep; that's gotta be it. QC on a cosmic scale.
-
I find it hard to accept that most of you are 'thinking' about it. To me it's more like you have reached the conclusion. I call it worship because you refuse to think outside the box of what you believe. God is rather obvious when you do. Also I'm not saying worship is sticking to a conclusion because that's the dangerous kind of worship. Sometimes we need to adjust. We adjust if all the dots connect and if there are fewer questions left to be answered.
The foresight exhibited in nature and it's beginning tell of a very intelligent being, which chaos does not.
You don't realise the irony of what you've just said. The only "dots" you have available to connect are equivalent to the ones you see here:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fanimation.yihui.name%2F_media%2Fanimation%3Ahermann_grid_illusion.png&hash=12e54bebbb2b62ce58ef3d2db3f7f8fb)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_illusion
You don't have the evidence so please stop pretending you do.
-
Maybe the great almighty are computers put together by some past other-planetary-system beings who are trying to discover whether they might have been created by organic pollutants and are husbanding us to test whether that might be so [:)] There must be some great debates going on amongst them. If we only had access to their message boards ! [:)]
-
Maybe the great almighty are computers put together by some past other-planetary-system beings who are trying to discover whether they might have been created by organic pollutants and are husbanding us to test whether that might be so There must be some great debates going on amongst them. If we only had access to their message boards !
Funny thing is, we are almost sure that we are not alone in the universe. People will even look for life on Mars, send signals to Saturn of all places. Scientist speculate that that life form is much higher than ours. But mention that the other form of life is what the bible calls angels and you immediately sound crazy. There is a more intelligent life form.
What makes Gold fish so beautiful if they were not created for our joy? Why are terriers so funny to look at?
This is exactly why I don't believe in God/Gods. Why should God/Gods not be obvious? What is the benefit in this?
For the same reason we want people to like us for what we are and not just for what we can give them. We all live something for people to find out as they get to know us better. Guys the bible said would be getting worse and worse before he is finally revealed. You can see for yourselves how bad things are getting. Subtly but truly.
-
What makes Gold fish so beautiful if they were not created for our joy? Why are terriers so funny to look at?
As I understand it, we bred both of those sub-species for our own purposes, though you do get some very beautiful fish...
Guys the bible said would be getting worse and worse before he is finally revealed. You can see for yourselves how bad things are getting. Subtly but truly.
Worse than the middle ages? Really?
-
What makes Gold fish so beautiful if they were not created for our joy?
This is one of the most arrogant statements I think that I've seen for a long time. What - it's all about YOU is it, and everything has been "made" so it's nice for YOU to look at? It doesn't get much more egocentric than that, surely?
-
This is one of the most arrogant statements I think that I've seen for a long time. What - it's all about YOU is it, and everything has been "made" so it's nice for YOU to look at? It doesn't get much more egocentric than that, surely?
Sorry if I sounded offensive but I really think they are pleasant to look at. And no evolution explains that.
Worse than the middle ages? Really?
Yes really. I don't think they had nuclear weapons, suicide bombers. And the people today are getting worse. Try not to compare to the middle ages but to what was there just 10 years ago. I don't know where you guys live but I know people are colder in your neighborhood too.
-
Worse than the middle ages? Really?
Yes really. I don't think they had nuclear weapons, suicide bombers. And the people today are getting worse. Try not to compare to the middle ages but to what was there just 10 years ago. I don't know where you guys live but I know people are colder in your neighborhood too.
Why should we compare to 10 years ago? You said:
Guys the bible said would be getting worse and worse before he is finally revealed. You can see for yourselves how bad things are getting. Subtly but truly.
For that comment to be anything but nonsense, we need to consider things since the bible was written, don't we?
Things are far better now for most people than they have been at almost any time since the bible was written - just because we hark back to the 'good old days' doesn't mean that things are genuinely worse now. I for one am decidedly glad I live here and now rather than in the middle ages.
-
This is one of the most arrogant statements I think that I've seen for a long time. What - it's all about YOU is it, and everything has been "made" so it's nice for YOU to look at? It doesn't get much more egocentric than that, surely?
Sorry if I sounded offensive but I really think they are pleasant to look at. And no evolution explains that.
I think the link may be too hard for you to understand. There are plenty of evolutionary advantages in developing an aesthetic. It's all a part of an evolved culture.
There is no 'obvious' reason why it should be put down to some Zookeeper making our cages pleasant.
-
There is no 'obvious' reason why it should be put down to some Zookeeper making our cages pleasant.
Wow; I like that! I hadn't thought of the Great Almighty as a zoo keeper before. But that does sum up the subject comment very well.
-
Anthropomorphism may be forgiven when dealing with the 'lower' animals or even with inanimate systems but many 'believers' have the nerve to do it with their God too. That always strikes me as the height of presumption.
-
This is exactly why I don't believe in God/Gods. Why should God/Gods not be obvious? What is the benefit in this?
For the same reason we want people to like us for what we are and not just for what we can give them.
How are people going to know what you are, to like you for yourself, if you're not obvious but instead obscure yourself with ambiguity and uncertainty?
-
Things are far better now for most people than they have been at almost any time since the bible was written - just because we hark back to the 'good old days' doesn't mean that things are genuinely worse now. I for one am decidedly glad I live here and now rather than in the middle ages.
By worse I was referring to :
...in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power...
2Tim 3
You must admit that everywhere you look people are like that unless you are so young you haven't noticed people change. Technology may have made life a bit better but not things are going down-hill.
...For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress...
Even the frequency of natural phenomena is increasing.
..[people in] anguish, not knowing the way out... while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers... will be shaken.
I remember Iraq when reading this, kids afraid even to go to the market because of suicide bombers or people left stranded due the financial crisis.
Things maybe o.k for some but we shouldn't be disregarding those in problems.
-
Anthropomorphism may be forgiven when dealing with the 'lower' animals or even with inanimate systems but many 'believers' have the nerve to do it with their God too. That always strikes me as the height of presumption.
And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him
Genesis 1
Presumptuousness is exhibited when man imagines himself to be the supreme intelligence of the universe when he can't even understand a wink about the structure of his own brain. No hard insults meant towards neurologists.
If there is any case for Anthropomorphism here then humans are ''lower' animals'.
-
Things are far better now for most people than they have been at almost any time since the bible was written - just because we hark back to the 'good old days' doesn't mean that things are genuinely worse now. I for one am decidedly glad I live here and now rather than in the middle ages.
By worse I was referring to :
...in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power...
2Tim 3
You must admit that everywhere you look people are like that unless you are so young you haven't noticed people change. Technology may have made life a bit better but not things are going down-hill.
People have always been that way. Don't be silly.
...For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress...
Even the frequency of natural phenomena is increasing.
You're just making stuff up. Where is the evidence that these disasters are becoming significantly more frequent? The only reason you're saying this is because you live now and notice it.
..[people in] anguish, not knowing the way out... while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers... will be shaken.
I remember Iraq when reading this, kids afraid even to go to the market because of suicide bombers or people left stranded due the financial crisis.
Things maybe o.k for some but we shouldn't be disregarding those in problems.
Those other places where people are suffering tend to be developing countries. They are clear examples of the conditions people experienced in pre-1st world society, and argue against your idealist view of "it's worse now than it used to be".
-
You're just making stuff up. Where is the evidence that these disasters are becoming significantly more frequent? The only reason you're saying this is because you live now and notice it.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-natural-disasters
I thought this was obvious. Note also that the world wars also fall under these time of the end. Not to mention that wars after these took even more lives.
-
Some new forms of disasters:
AIDS, Bird Flu, Spanish Influenza, Terrorists, World wars, Nuclear proliferation, global warming and the list goes on. I am sure you know what I mean.
-
Did you read what the linked page said? The only clear information the graph shows is an increase in the number of disasters reported due to population growth and development. The data is also only from 1900s onwards, a fraction of the time over which geological disasters have been occurring.
As to the rest: viruses have always plagued humans; humans have always performed hostile acts towards others, and terrorists are actually not a major cause of death; Climate change is the only phenomenon which can even remotely fit your criteria, but it hardly promotes your cause, because the earth has experienced multiple dramatic climate fluctuations before.
There is no such thing as "the good old days". You are temporally biased. You have no argument.
-
People have always been that way. Don't be silly.
Increase in the following is undeniable :
Terrorism
Immorality (including homosexuality, infidelity, pornography industry etc)
Drug abuse
Lark of regard for others
yet again I'm sure you can finish off the list yourself.
I hope are not too sidetracked from what we started talking about. i.e the origin of matter.
-
Hahaha.
You have to be joking.
Terrorism is a form of hostility. Humans have always been hostle to enemies.
Those things can hardly be called immoral, unless you have a 1st century mindset.
Evidence for drug abuse dates back to the Stone Ages.
Lack of regard for others? Come on.
As for your ideas of "proof", you won't get anywhere with them.
-
I hope are not too sidetracked from what we started talking about. i.e the origin of matter.
Um... have you got the wrong thread? We weren't discussing the origin of matter at all.
-
As to the rest: viruses have always plagued humans; humans have always performed hostile acts towards others, and terrorists are actually not a major cause of death; Climate change is the only phenomenon which can even remotely fit your criteria, but it hardly promotes your cause, because the earth has experienced multiple dramatic climate fluctuations before.
You're arguing any facts and trying to explain them before you really think about them. You sound like you're having a chat with Jim Jones or David Koresh. I'm just an ordinary guy and these facts I'm pulling out are just to answer some of the arguments guys have brought forward.
-
You mean you're pulling those facts out of thin air.
-
You mean you're pulling those facts out of thin air.
Basically we all agree they are 'facts'. Some would argue even their own existence just to cling to their belief there is no God, that everything came from nothing.
-
Your facts are either wrong, or not used in the correct context / misused to support dubious arguments.
Not all facts are true.
-
Not all facts are true.
FACT: a thing that is indisputably the case
Concise oxford dictionary
Hope you won't stand by your phrase because it is not true.
I just wanted you to pick out what I may be misusing as a fact or whatever fact may be misinterpreting as evidence of worsening world events. Don't get depressed with my tone. That is not at all my intention.
-
By that I meant that not everything that is called a fact, is actually true. Some things can be asserted despite the state of the evidence.
I am trying to explain to you that your belief that things are worse now than they were 2000 years ago is demonstrably false in the developed world. Despite certain phenomena that we currently suffer from, our overall conditions are by far better than they used to be even 100 years ago. Thanks to our living conditions and modern medicine, we are living on average longer and healthier than ever before.
You are biased by the fact that you live in the present and so the disasters the world currently experiences are much more significant to you than those our ancestors experienced. Yet none of the types of disasters you describe are unique to the present, and people 2000 years ago suffered more from them. In this light, the "facts" you have presented do not support your argument.
-
Yet none of the types of disasters you describe are unique to the present, and people 2000 years ago suffered more from them
I'm think about the world wars and AIDS and shaking my head at your statement. I'm not suffering any of these but I know we have had major disasters of our own and they are much worse than what could be there before. The bible doesn't say they will happen at every square meter of the earth but they would be getting worse. Interestingly, it does too mention that people would refuse to take note.
For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be (days of the end). For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
-
Increase in the following is undeniable :
Terrorism
[The Bible is full of it and life on the Northwest Frontier was always that way)
Immorality (including homosexuality, infidelity, pornography industry etc)
(Try Ancient Rome)
Drug abuse
(Laudnum was pretty popular in Victorian times. Hashish has been around for a long time and regularly used. And when was drinking Alcohol first invented? I think the Babylonians were quite keen on it.)
Lark of regard for others
(On what evidence? Who cared for slaves - ever? Or foreigners, like Samaritans, for instance? )
yet again I'm sure you can finish off the list yourself.
(It's your list and, so far it is zero length)
-
But was your list devised in order to provide some statistical proof of the existence of a God?
To me, it looks more like a subjective justification. Fair enough, but don't expect it to convince me.
-
(Laudnum was pretty popular in Victorian times. Hashish has been around for a long time and regularly used. And when was drinking Alcohol first invented? I think the Babylonians were quite keen on it.)
Things have been bad in the past too indeed. Some were even destroyed for it like in the case of the global deluge. But the warning is that whenever these things will reach great extents, a lot worse than before in magnitude, then the end will come. I mean even scientists can tell that global warming is leaving life on earth on the balance.
-
Increase in the following is undeniable :
Terrorism
(The Bible is full of it and life on the Northwest Frontier was always that way)
So who were the suicide bombers and did they manage to take on average 25 lives a day?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is similar to what you are referring to and I am not giving that as example.
(Laudnum was pretty popular in Victorian times. Hashish has been around for a long time and regularly used. And when was drinking Alcohol first invented? I think the Babylonians were quite keen on it.)
They used to have it yes. Babylon was destroyed by God for it.
Hashish. You may have heard of ecstasy or cocaine which are quite worse (not that hashish is OK).
(Try Ancient Rome)
I decided to remove the comment... It is directed at some other topic of contention.
-
(Try Ancient Rome)
Try Netherlands with there homosexual population. I mean you must know that this is a really free society we are living in. Even churches now condone.
Here you're just exposing your bias. There's nowt wrong with homosexuality whatsoever. If two people are in love, I couldn't care less what gender they are.
I think most people on this site are fairly humanist about this sort of thing, what gives you the right to say that the way someone chooses to live their life is wrong?
-
I removed my comment about homosexual activity in recent times. Then if you're more comfortable about it, then I will redirect my attention to the pornography industry and how much access people have to such. They may have been quite loose in Rome but now the stuff is all over. Even just in my childhood, pornography was something you just heard about, now even 8 year old kids can quite easily access it.
-
In ancient times, 8 year old kids were approaching or had even reached marital age.
Your position is not defendable. Few if any of the ills you describe are unique to modern society.
-
Your position is not defendable. Few if any of the ills you describe are unique to modern society.
They are not unique but they are on the increase. Some may be explained to population increase, global warming and others to moral degradation (and I didn't come up with the phrase).
-
a large number of persons do not believe that God exists. And since many of these persons are scientists, some individuals jump to the conclusion that to believe in the existence of God the Creator is unscientific. Yet others think to be a real scientists (of astronomical proportions) you have to be Atheist. That's very unfortunate.
-
You really shouldn't go back and edit old posts to change their content. Quickly correcting a typo or re-phrasing the same thing to clarify the meaning is ok, but removing things you've already said some time ago can turn the thread in to meaningless gibberish as people may have already replied to stuff you've removed in the light of their comments.
If you subsequently realise that you were wrong about something, then just say so in the thread, so that the thread still makes sense. Removing stuff from your old posts really looks like you're trying to hide a mistake and are re-writing history to fit with what you're currently saying or claiming.
-
Your position is not defendable. Few if any of the ills you describe are unique to modern society.
They are not unique but they are on the increase. Some may be explained to population increase, global warming and others to moral degradation (and I didn't come up with the phrase).
This is nonsense. You have not demonstrated this to be true. You can hardly say that the net amount of ills experienced by each person per unit of time has increased since thousands of years ago. Give it up already.
a large number of persons do not believe that God exists. And since many of these persons are scientists, some individuals jump to the conclusion that to believe in the existence of God the Creator is unscientific. Yet others think to be a real scientists (of astronomical proportions) you have to be Atheist. That's very unfortunate.
You are making an appeal to authority. God-belief is not unscientific because some atheists are scientists, but because a god can not be investigated scientifically - there's just no evidence, and there are so many contradictions between the god concept and what is already understood about the physics of the universe. It's the same reason that belief in faeries and invisible pink unicorns is unscientific.
-
what do you get if you cross and atheist and a Jehovah's witness?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.
Very good, Paul.
Have you heard about the insomniac who is agnostic and dyslexic?
Stays up all night wondering whether there really is a dog.
-
You guys are forgetting the Qu'ran Muslims have so much proof of the book being right and prooving God or Allah. It has signs of the day of judgment and it has not been wrong yet it told of the mongols attacking the Islamic empire and then making peace with them. Then it says that the sun will rise on the west. Scientist are now seeing that the earth is starting to slowly slow down and eventually it will stop and go the other way. Mathematically I don't think you can prove God is real with numbers.
By the way for the christians I was wondering I do not believe you guys have the original bible so how do you refer back to the original and make sure nothing is being messed with because in history there have been corrupt christian leader that could have tampered the bible and noone has an original to say "wait someone messed with the bible.". Why are there so many kinds of christians , why when I ask someone what religon they are they say something besides christianity?
-
It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.
It says in clear terms that matter resulted from energy. No 2 ways about it.
The bible doesn't talk about science, it sticks to allusion, which is so open to interpretation as to make it meaningless in any absolute sense. Incidentally, both the ancient Greeks and Asian Indians thought that the Earth was spherical.
You must have heard interpretations from guys who don't really know the bible. About Indians, it is common knowledge that they believed in an elephant with a turtle on it's back on whose back was the earth. Even just 500 years ago people were afraid of falling over the edge. And Philosophy was quite hot then.
The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant. Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof. Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.
Not true
The lack of evidence for one.
You exist as proof. Singularity if it existed must have come from somewhere. Isaiah explains where.
Well the bible does not really have proof of its self being right or holy even though I do believe some of it is right but the Qu'ran does have eye witnesses of its holiness and the miracles of its time. They are called Hadiths look them up they are quotes from the time of prophet Mohamed(pbuh).
and so noone gets it mixed up Muslims do believe in Jesus (pbuh).
-
I have seen many Magic Tricks and I saw what I saw. The trick worked for me. That doesn't mean that there really was levitation and teleportation. Witnesses (especially in the dim and distant past) are actually worth zilch as a 'proof' of anything.
Old Moore's Almamanac is full of 'predictions', as are Astrologers' statements. If you are inventive enough, then you can link them to subsequent events but how often do they predict Derby winners of the state of the Stock Exchange? Are they all driving round in posher cars since the Credit Crunch arrived? Why didn't they know about it?
To prove something as important as the existence of a God it would be necessary to do those same 'miracles' on demand and under laboratory conditions.
Why do you guys not just accept that you have faith and that that is enough for you?
I guess, if you are a Muslim, you would claim that the Koran is the right version and the others got it wrong. That's understandable. But show me a passage in that document which accurately predicts a modern event with complete lack of ambiguity.
-
there are so many contradictions between the god concept and what is already understood about the physics of the universe.
It would be great to hear some examples Stef.
You have not demonstrated this to be true. You can hardly say that the net amount of ills experienced by each person per unit of time has increased since thousands of years ago. Give it up already.
That's because you live in Australia. If you lived here or most other places in the world your opinion would be very different. You haven't seen 10 year olds begging in streets to feed 3 younger sibling orphans of parents who have died of AIDS. Or 90% unemployment cases as in Zimbabwe. Do you know what their inflation rate is? Most of you are arguing facts just because you are doing fine. It's a pity that guys from less developed countries are not on this discussion forum. You would get a different picture.
So if we were talking average pains per person, it may not be fair to compare with the past but maybe to check the current pains in the light of what the current state of people should be. What comes to mind when you hear words like Nazi, Darfur, Rwanda, Hiroshima? If you can try to picture yourself there or your family members then you may get a picture that these are serious matters. We face the danger of accepting such things as normal...of growing insensitive to the pains of others.
-
demadone
You haven't seen 10 year olds begging in streets to feed 3 younger sibling orphans of parents who have died of AIDS. Or 90% unemployment cases as in Zimbabwe.
Such situations have existed since the year dot - they were not written about because they were just not remarkable OR, perhaps, because people in 'your' wonderful past ages just didn't care. At least some people care nowadays. Basically your comparisons are meaningless because they are not fair tests in the Scientific sense. Your observation / measurement systems are not comparable so neither are the results.
I believe that the Christians were pretty vile to Muslims during the Crusades. Would you say they were any better than they are now?
-
I have seen many Magic Tricks and I saw what I saw. The trick worked for me. That doesn't mean that there really was levitation and teleportation. Witnesses (especially in the dim and distant past) are actually worth zilch as a 'proof' of anything.
Old Moore's Almamanac is full of 'predictions', as are Astrologers' statements. If you are inventive enough, then you can link them to subsequent events but how often do they predict Derby winners of the state of the Stock Exchange? Are they all driving round in posher cars since the Credit Crunch arrived? Why didn't they know about it?
To prove something as important as the existence of a God it would be necessary to do those same 'miracles' on demand and under laboratory conditions.
Why do you guys not just accept that you have faith and that that is enough for you?
I guess, if you are a Muslim, you would claim that the Koran is the right version and the others got it wrong. That's understandable. But show me a passage in that document which accurately predicts a modern event with complete lack of ambiguity.
OK Muslims do believe in some of the bible but there had been so much corruption God made another and final book . For modern predictions Qu'ran said that there would be a time where premarriagle sex and there would be disease with it which is Aids HIV. Another is time of global crisis in the economy.us One more off the top of my head is Muslims not following the right path [ The terriost and eveyday muslims not following the teachings of the Qu'ran or the word of the Prophet Mohammad pbuh]
-
For modern predictions Qu'ran said that there would be a time where premarriagle sex and there would be disease with it which is Aids HIV.
Which affects a great deal of married, monogamous, faithful people worldwide.
If you can discount the bible, which it seems you can, then why not the Qu'ran? Do you see any double standard there?
-
For modern predictions Qu'ran said that there would be a time where premarriagle sex and there would be disease with it which is Aids HIV.
Which affects a great deal of married, monogamous, faithful people worldwide.
If you can discount the bible, which it seems you can, then why not the Qu'ran? Do you see any double standard there?
To tell you the truth I do not thin, it is wrong. Now I step back and look back what doesn't make sense and it all does, tell me what you see is wrong in the book I will not be offended. But almost everyone now is fearful of gettimg AIDS ask anyone who just had unmariagle sex they worry for pregancy and sti this because of the past with prostitutes and many different lovers and leaving them.
-
Such situations have existed since the year dot - they were not written about because they were just not remarkable OR, perhaps, because people in 'your' wonderful past ages just didn't care. At least some people care nowadays.
I believe that the Christians were pretty vile to Muslims during the Crusades. Would you say they were any better than they are now?
That is true. Entire nations and empires have experienced their final days of existence. Only a few generations ago mighty Indian nations roamed the plains of the western United States, living a simple nomadic life. But now they are gone, stamped out of existence by the westward-moving white men.
The “last days” here spoken of in the Bible are obviously an important period in history that would be marked by unusual distress. Yet, the Bible shows that, in spite of the evidence that the “last days” were at hand, people would not believe it. Instead, they would ridicule: 'All things are continuing as they always have been.'
When Mount Vesuvius was sending forth warnings in 79 AD, the majority of people in the city of Pompeii did not heed. While a few left the city at the mountain’s first outburst, many Pompeians—chiefly the wealthy—refused to abandon precious homes and possessions and took shelter, hoping the horror would pass. The decision cost them their lives. They realized that things were not right, yet they did not flee. How foolish! Rather than make a similar mistake, we today should heed the warning of the end’s approach.
-
WOW. You can't wait for the world to end. You see decline everywhere when there's really none.
-
Such situations have existed since the year dot - they were not written about because they were just not remarkable OR, perhaps, because people in 'your' wonderful past ages just didn't care. At least some people care nowadays.
I believe that the Christians were pretty vile to Muslims during the Crusades. Would you say they were any better than they are now?
That is true. Entire nations and empires have experienced their final days of existence. Only a few generations ago mighty Indian nations roamed the plains of the western United States, living a simple nomadic life. But now they are gone, stamped out of existence by the westward-moving white men.
The “last days” here spoken of in the Bible are obviously an important period in history that would be marked by unusual distress. Yet, the Bible shows that, in spite of the evidence that the “last days” were at hand, people would not believe it. Instead, they would ridicule: 'All things are continuing as they always have been.'
When Mount Vesuvius was sending forth warnings in 79 AD, the majority of people in the city of Pompeii did not heed. While a few left the city at the mountain’s first outburst, many Pompeians—chiefly the wealthy—refused to abandon precious homes and possessions and took shelter, hoping the horror would pass. The decision cost them their lives. They realized that things were not right, yet they did not flee. How foolish! Rather than make a similar mistake, we today should heed the warning of the end’s approach.
-
Stefan you never came back with those examples I requested
-
WOW. You can't wait for the world to end. You see decline everywhere when there's really none.
the Bible shows that, in spite of the evidence that the “last days” were at hand, people would not believe it. Instead, they would ridicule: 'All things are continuing as they always have been.'
Actually this discussion has been dragging on because of something I mentioned along the thread that we are living in the last days.
Can't wait to take a different turn in this discussion. We are discussing the existence of a creator.
-
The fact that you need to ask for examples means that you are ignorant of how science works and/or have not read the bible. Just open up to almost any page where the topic is God and you'll see the contradictions between God and reality.
-
Can't wait to take a different turn in this discussion. We are discussing the existence of a creator.
Well, we were discussing the absence of mathematical proof of the existence of god.
You think there is a god, I do not. You cannot prove it to me, and I cannot disprove it to you.
I think the burden of proof is on you to prove your fairy exists, you feel it's my responsibility to prove it doesn't.
Where is this going to get us?
Why don't we just debate the existence of elves?
-
This blog entry says something about the lack of evidence for god: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/effectively_non-existent.php
-
WOW. You can't wait for the world to end. You see decline everywhere when there's really none.
the Bible shows that, in spite of the evidence that the “last days” were at hand, people would not believe it. Instead, they would ridicule: 'All things are continuing as they always have been.'
Actually this discussion has been dragging on because of something I mentioned along the thread that we are living in the last days.
Can't wait to take a different turn in this discussion. We are discussing the existence of a creator.
I'm afraid that a lame argument of yours turned round and bit you. Of course the notion of 'last days' is a nonsense one. We've had so many false endings to the World that it's got boring - and we're still here.
Perception of the past follows the inverse square law if one lacks rigour in one's analysis.
And we're actually looking for a "Mathematical Proof". Let's be having one then.
-
My thinking...
In my opinion
maths is objective, God is subjective,quite hard to mix the two directly...
Maths probably can't prove god, the same as it can't prove my favourite color is red.
On the other hand
If it is possible, it would probably happen through music. Maths is very tightly linked to music and music is linked to our emotions, and our emotions are linked to our soul.
-
I have two souls, one on each shoe........ Oh! and The Beatles 'Rubber Soul' .........
And, of course, not forgetting my ar(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fmouthzippedshut%2F1.gif&hash=037747c4bf0ab86db4337375f3c71610)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-violent001.gif&hash=b595392ee6a5c64aee35cf92c54e58e1) (http://www.freesmileys.org) What did I say? What did I say?
I was only going to say (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-violent064.gif&hash=a09cdcbd1fc760d6d5aaf08c9729c708) (http://www.freesmileys.org) Let me say it will you, you, why you.....
-
In the United States today, we have tens of thousands of priests, rabbis, mullahs, pastors, and preachers who are paid professionals, who claim to be active and functioning mediators between people and omnipotent invisible masters of the universe. They make specific claims about their god's nature, what he's made of and what he isn't, how he thinks and acts, what you should do to propitiate it…they somehow seem to have amazingly detailed information about this being. Yet, when a scientist approaches with a critical eye, suddenly it is a creature that not only has never been observed, but cannot observed, and its actions invisible, impalpible, and immaterial.
If that's the evidence against God's existence....
You are asking the wrong people.
From what I gathered from that article, there is absolutely nothing to prove God's nonexistence. Worse still he is just making fun of creationists. Once you start generalizing creationists, then you are not playing by the rules. I for one don't think dinosaurs are proof that God doesn't exist or even the old ape fossils.
Creationism is by me the notion of the universe created by intelligence and not by impossible chance.
Darwin never concluded that he's observations and deductions meant God doesn't exist. He's followers though try to depict it that way.
I never said I have mathematical proof of God's existence. It's an absurd notion.
-
You're not making much sense. You haven't read the blog entry properly either.
"Worse still"?
"Creationism is by me the notion of the universe created by intelligence and not by impossible chance."
That's the kind of creationism that academics are fighting against.
This is not about Darwin. Science does not depend on Darwin.
If you have unambiguous evidence for anything you are claiming, please present it. Otherwise, please stop making stuff up.
-
You're not making much sense. You haven't read the blog entry properly either.
Maybe you can show me what evidence is there in the blog. I didn't see any. For one thing one of the blog users gives a good example of something influenced on by the spirit realm, dowsing. Though I believe it is influenced by bad spirits.
And to say God hidden from man is way too much. The whole universe is a good example. Do you know the most influential man ever on earth?
-
I can't imagine what it must be like to be in your head. I can't follow your logic.
Pharyngula readers are influenced by bad spirits? WTF?
The blog was pointing out that there is no evidence for god. It's up to those who claim there is a god to provide the evidence.
To say that the universe and it's contents is evidence for god is not valid, because there is no way to distinguish this from the alternative, that the universe arose and developed by natural processes. There is no way to test that god hypothesis and reach the conclusion that god is real, because all the evidence can be explained by reasonable natural answers.
If god wanted science to think that he doesn't exist, he's done everything in his power to make it seem that way.
-
Pharyngula readers are influenced by bad spirits?
I never said that. Dowsing is.
To say that the universe and it's contents is evidence for god is not valid, because there is no way to distinguish this from the alternative, that the universe arose and developed by natural processes. There is no way to test that god hypothesis and reach the conclusion that god is real, because all the evidence can be explained by reasonable natural answers.
And have you ever sat down to think that those 'reasonable natural answers' are guided by certain rules that made it possible for the universe to exist in the first place?
that the universe arose and developed by natural processes
An unguided explosion would have left many loop holes for chaotic debris that could not be studied by 'reasonable' science. And by all means even if the singularity had no source, it would never have exploded into a sustainable universe with all the elements we know.
Talking of the big bang, the early empty spaces that made it possible for the stars to ignite can not be explained if the big bang was not designed and guided. Note too that singularities don't explode under normal conditions. By 'reasonable' science, they don't explode.
I can't imagine what it must be like to be in your head. I can't follow your logic.
Try to read my threads carefully and with a neutral perspective.
-
The fact that you need to ask for examples means that you are ignorant of how science works and/or have not read the bible. Just open up to almost any page where the topic is God and you'll see the contradictions between God and reality.
I think that is what make things up is. You still can't come up with any examples of what you mean.
-
For pity sake!!!!
There can be no evidence, mathematical or otherwise, fore or against the existence of any Gods.
We all make our own individual choice based on what evidence there is, what theory there is and the writings, findings, theories and beliefs of scientists and theologians and the bloke down the pub.
We are free to follow whichever path we choose, be it atheist, agnostic, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism or paganism, just as we are free to follow Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, Take That or Dolly Parton; just as we are free to choose between Ford, Nissan or BMW.
My atheism has no effect on any other person. It is my choice and my choice alone. If you choose to believe in God, so be it, may your God be with you.
Can we not be adult enough to leave it at that, and agree to disagree? This argument is getting nobody anywhere.
-
There can be no evidence, mathematical or otherwise, fore or against the existence of any Gods.
I through in a few lines of evidence in the thread (MessageID: 228803). Unless perhaps you don't know much about the big bang and it's early stages.
-
This is basically just a big game of "Spot the Logical Fallacy". God of the Gaps features very prominantly....Any additions anyone?
-
I'm with Don_1 on this, and will re-state my earlier post:
You think there is a god, I do not. You cannot prove it to me, and I cannot disprove it to you.
I think the burden of proof is on you to prove your fairy exists, you feel it's my responsibility to prove it doesn't.
Where is this going to get us?
There is no sensible debate here, and certainly no science. We could continue to argue this forever, as there is no scientific evidence for god, yet those who believe in a god see 'evidence' everywhere they look.
I hope everyone can be happy believing what they want to believe, without trying to foist it upon others.
I'm locking this thread now. PM me if you feel it's really worth having this thread still ongoing on a science forum.