Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  3 months ago  •  699 comments

Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?
Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on judgment day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” Russell retorted, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'” One wonders what kind of evidence Russell was referring to when he made this statement. Did he expect God to appear to him in the flesh? Write him a personal message in the clouds? Give him the ability to fly? From my perspective, God...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on judgment day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” Russell retorted, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'”

One wonders what kind of evidence Russell was referring to when he made this statement. Did he expect God to appear to him in the flesh? Write him a personal message in the clouds? Give him the ability to fly?

From my perspective, God has given us evidence — a lot of it for that matter. From my perspective, so much evidence for God exists, that it seems unreasonable to doubt his existence. Let me give you two quick arguments to show you what I mean.

Cosmological Argument


The argument goes like this:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a logically valid argument. That is, if premises 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion (3) necessarily follows. Let’s look at the premises in turn:

1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause

The fundamental principle in science is the law of causality. That is, every effect comes with an underlying cause. We know of no single effect in the universe that came about uncaused. The computer I’m using exists because programmers, engineers, and technicians all worked to create it. The desk I’m using was made by a craftsman. The tree used to make my desk grew because a seed was put in the ground and the sun and rain helped it grow. And I could go on. The point is that cause and effect is the way things work. We don’t know of any exceptions.

For centuries, skeptics never denied this premise, because they asserted that the universe itself was eternal (it didn’t begin to exist). Prominent eighteenth century skeptic David Hume even declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”1

Recently, however, skeptics have changed their tune because it’s virtually undeniable that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Therefore, they sometimes respond by saying the cause and effect structure is true of everything in the universe, but not for the universe itself. This, however, commits the taxi-cab fallacy. It’s the idea that I can use certain principles to support my claims, but then hop off those same principles (like you would a taxi) when they’re inconvenient.

2. The Universe Began to Exist

The evidence for a universe that began a finite time ago is overwhelming to say the least. Let me give a few pieces of evidence. First, in 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from distant galaxies, which meant they were flying apart from us at rapid speeds. In other words, Hubble discovered, through observation, that our universe is expanding.

If our universe is expanding (picture a cone shape), all one needs to do is subtract our universe back in time to discover that it eventually comes to a point — the time of its inception. Hubble’s discovery by itself is enough to demonstrate a definite beginning of our universe. But there’s more.

Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which others have confirmed down to the fifth decimal point, demands that all space, time, and matter came into existence simultaneously, and they’re all co-relative. Furthermore, his calculations predicted an expanding universe — much like the one Hubble discovered through his telescope.

Einstein, not a theist himself, was troubled by his findings because of the theological implications. He even tried to fudge his numbers to avoid a definite beginning of the universe, but later corrected them and admitted it was the biggest blunder of his career.

Finally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves the universe isn’t eternal, but rather began a finite time ago. The Second Law states that the universe is running out of usable energy. Much like a car driving down the highway that will eventually run out of gas, the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. Thus, if the universe has existed for all eternity, it would have already run out of energy, pointing to the fact that it began a finite time ago.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause

Since space, time, and matter all came into existence simultaneously, whatever caused it must be beyond space, time, and matter. In other words, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Furthermore, it must be personal to choose to create, and all-powerful to create a universe as massive as ours.

Teleological Argument


The argument goes like this:

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe has a complex design
  3. Therefore, the universe has a designer

Let’s look at the premises in turn:

1. All Designs have a Designer

Imagine one day you were walking through the woods and stumbled across a pocket watch. You pick it up, take it apart, see all the different moving parts, and ponder its existence. What would you conclude about the cause of the watch? Did it come about from the rain and mud? Did a combination of natural forces produce the watch? No, of course not. You immediately recognize that it was designed for a specific purpose. This illustration, made famous by eighteenth century philosopher William Paley argues that all complex designs require a designer.

After all, specific, complex designs don’t happen by chance through natural causes. The computer I’m using, with all its different parts, was obviously designed by intelligent beings. Same is true for the computer or phone you’re using to read this article. The car you drive or the house you live in are all examples of design. Imagine if I said my car was the result of a tornado going through a junk yard filled with different parts. That claim would be absurd, because we all know that designs require an intelligent designer and don’t arise by chance through natural causes.

2. The Universe has a Complex Design

The truth is that our universe is far more complex than any computer, car, phone, or any other human design for that matter — something William Paley was hinting at in his watch illustration. For example, all the seemingly arbitrary laws of physics, which could be completely different, are all the precise values you need if you want to have a universe capable of sustaining life.

Take the law of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% we would all die.2 To illustrate how precise this law is, imagine stretching a tape measure across the entire universe. The tape would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches long, and this tape measure represents the possible range of the force of gravity. The force of gravity as we know it is set on one of the inch marks along the tape. Now, imagine that we move the force of gravity one inch in either direction, the impact would be catastrophic. We would all die.

The law of gravity doesn’t have to be what it is. It could be a little stronger or a little weaker, but it’s set precisely where it needs to be for life to exist.

Let me give you another example. The so-called cosmological constant — the energy density of empty space — is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten with fifty-three zeroes behind it.3 In essence, this constant impacts the expansion rate of the universe. If the constant was altered in the slightest bit, causing the universe to expand a little faster, the result would be that galaxies, stars, and planets could not have formed. If it caused the universe to expand slightly slower, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. Either way, we wouldn’t exist.

One scientist suggests there are at least thirty of these different physical laws that require such precision in order for life to exist.4 That’s pretty incredible when you consider that none of those parameters had to be what they are. It seems that a designer knew we were coming.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a Designer

British philosopher Alister McGrath states, “Is it pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?”5 Based on the evidence from design, we can conclude that the cause of the universe must also be supremely intelligent and purposeful.

Overwhelming Evidence


Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful. That sounds an awful lot like God, wouldn’t you say?

So why do skeptics, like Bertrand Russell, say there isn’t enough evidence? I submit to you that they’re looking in the wrong places. They’re looking for God to do something inside the creation — like do a miracle, appear to them, or give them a special message — when all they need to do is consider the origin and design of the universe.

This would be equivalent to me denying D. R. Horton’s existence (my home builder) because I don’t see him anywhere in my house. I’ve checked all the rooms, the garage, and even the attic, but I can’t find him. Therefore, I conclude, he must not exist.

But that’s absurd. Of course he exists! How do you suppose my house got there? And what about all the evidence for design on in the inside and outside of the house? It’s evident, based on the house itself, that D.R. Horton exists. In the same way, when we consider the origin and design of our universe, it’s evident that God exists too.

 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    3 months ago

“Based on the evidence from design, we can conclude that the cause of the universe must also be supremely intelligent and purposeful.

Overwhelming Evidence

Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful. That sounds an awful lot like God, wouldn’t you say?

So why do skeptics, like Bertrand Russell, say there isn’t enough evidence? I submit to you that they’re looking in the wrong places. They’re looking for God to do something inside the creation — like do a miracle, appear to them, or give them a special message — when all they need to do is consider the origin and design of the universe.”

 
 
Heartland American
1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

The scientific evidence for both an intelligent creator for the earth and the universe and for the intelligent designer being an all powerful God is overwhelming.  A great article. [deleted]

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.1    3 months ago

There is no scientific evidence for a god or ID. it seems you do not understand what constitutes actual evidence. 

 
 
Heartland American
1.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]  

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    3 months ago

Since when are empty threats scientific?  That sounds more emotional than rational. No wonder your absurd assertions are so laughable and not worthy of consideration.  

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.3    3 months ago
Since when are empty threats scientific?

Thankfully today they are empty, but that's only been the case in the last hundred years or so. Before then the proof of God was a gun to your head or a noose around your neck. While their methods are no longer as violent, those behind them are just as worthless and immoral as they've ever been.

 
 
TᵢG
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    3 months ago
And you will stand with Russell Bertrand on judgement day.

His name was Bertrand Russell.   Look him up.   He used his mind effectively - a genuine critical thinker.

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    3 months ago

Critical thinking seems to be an anathema to YECs.

 
 
TᵢG
1.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    3 months ago

They are the poster children for non-critical thinking.   This is evidenced by the substantial effort they put in to try to discredit anything that conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible.

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.8    3 months ago

Well, they get an 'A' for effort, but an 'F' for results. They probably got an 'F' in science too. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
epistte
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    3 months ago
And you will stand with Russell Bertrand on judgement day.   

You are assuming that there will be a judgment day, but you have no evidence of such ever existing, outside of a book of myths written by ancient men.

 
 
Phoenyx13
1.1.11  Phoenyx13  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    3 months ago
And you will stand with Russell Bertrand on judgement day.

we've all been hearing of this "judgement day" for over 200 years... what's taking so long for it to arrive ?

 
 
SteevieGee
1.1.12  SteevieGee  replied to  Heartland American @1.1    3 months ago

Rediculous!  If D.R. Horton isn't in your house it's because he doesn't live there.  If you go to D.R. Horton's house you could easily prove his existence.  I don't know if there's a god.  You can't prove that something doesn't exist.  All of the major religions are WRONG though especially Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  

 

 
 
Tacos!
1.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Heartland American @1.1    3 months ago
The scientific evidence

To be fair, the arguments are not scientific. It's more like deductive reasoning (or inductive, but that's a different discussion). I think God by his very nature isn't something we can investigate scientifically. The scientific method just doesn't lend itself effectively to that inquiry.

And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Scientific processes are not the only path to knowledge and truth. A lot of "scientific" theoretical physics and cosmology operates the same way.

 
 
Heartland American
1.1.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.3    3 months ago

There was no threat.  It is a fact of the future fate for all humanity that refuses to believe rejecting all opportunities presented to change ones mind.  All humanity that has ever lived, is living, and ever will live will either be inside the New Jerusalem or outside it during that final battle between good and evil.  

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.14    3 months ago

Of course it's a threat. It's a threat of impending doom or damnation if one doesn't believe in your particular god. It's like the divine version of "an offer you can't refuse." And it's not a fact as you claim. It's nothing more than your own belief. Belief does not equal fact. It's also nothing more than emotionally based drivel, which only shows your inability to formulate any rational argument or rebuttal.

 
 
devangelical
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

No evidence and this article is seeded under the wrong topic.

 
 
Heartland American
1.2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  devangelical @1.2    3 months ago

The article is using science to prove creation and that the creator is in fact God.  

 
 
1.2.2    replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    3 months ago
The article is using science to prove creation

E.A If I may::

 Romans Chapter one in particular verses 18 - 27 make the same point ALL evolutionist and Anarchist make, Go and learn from NATURE what is indisputable!!

 Indisputable that is to those " that have ears ……. and Have Eyes …. "

 
 
Gordy327
1.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    3 months ago

there is no science in it. Just assumptions. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    3 months ago
The article is using science to prove creation and that the creator is in fact God.

Science: noun - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific method involves careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a precept. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Where in that mass of garbage seed above does it describe any actual observation and experiment? Where is even a smidgen of skepticism let alone rigorous skepticism? Where are the experimental findings to argue for a God hypothesis?

So no, your seed does not in any way use science to prove creation, it uses half baked opinion, conjecture and backwards reasoning to reach a predetermined conclusion the authors were set on believing before they even set out.

 
 
MrFrost
1.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    3 months ago
The article is using science to prove creation

And it failed miserably.

 
 
Tacos!
1.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @1.2    3 months ago
this article is seeded under the wrong topic

Isn't it under "Religion and Ethics?" Seems appropriate.

 
 
devangelical
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.6    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
Heartland American
1.2.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    3 months ago

I didn’t change it.  The change was theocratically imposed by those on high despite the fact that the seeded article used scientific methodology to promote his  case.  The article was reseeded over and above my objections to The contrary.  

 
 
epistte
1.2.9  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.8    3 months ago
I didn’t change it.  The change was theocratically imposed by those on high despite the fact that the seeded article used scientific methodology to promote his  case.  The article was reseeded over and above my objections to The contrary.  

What scientific methodology is being used to promote this illogical claim of god existing?

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @1.2.9    3 months ago
What scientific methodology is being used to promote this illogical claim of god existing?

probably the same methodology that led a priest to be the first to theorize the big bang theory.

 
 
epistte
1.2.11  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.10    3 months ago

That priest was a graduate of MIT, so he was extensively trained in science. He wasn't an idiot thumper. 

A professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.8    3 months ago

What scientific methodology?  The only "methodology" used  are assumption. The article has a distinct lack of real science.

 
 
lady in black
1.3  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

No evidence, wrong as usual

 
 
TᵢG
1.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.1    3 months ago

see TiG @16

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.4  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago
Take the law of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% we would all die.2

That's a frikken hilarious amount of zeroes. Did someone's key get stuck?  

Why do I have the feeling that whoever wrote that isn't all that great with math? I see that the listed reference is just to some creationist book.

That would be a very, very, very, very, very (+32 more very's) insignificant amount of anything. If gravity changed that little I doubt we'd even notice with our best instruments.

To illustrate how precise this law is, imagine stretching a tape measure across the entire universe. The tape would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches long

LOL! Inches? Try light years. The tape would be billions upon billions of light years long.

Now, imagine that we move the force of gravity one inch in either direction, the impact would be catastrophic. We would all die.

Uh huh. One inch out of billions upon billions of light years. Just one light year is something like 6 trillion miles. I'm not even going to bother with how many inches would be in billions upon billions of light years.

A change that infinitesimally small would very likely be meaningless. We damn sure wouldn't just up and die.

 
 
Heartland American
1.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 months ago

Yes, there is! 

 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    3 months ago
Is There Evidence For God’s Existence?

No. Never has been, never will be. 

 
 
Heartland American
2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @2    3 months ago

You are looking in all the wrong places.  The universe and its creation are proof enough that God, it’s intelligent creator exists.  

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago
The universe and its creation are proof enough

Wrong. There is no proof at all. You and this article are an OPINION. 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago

That's no more proof of a god than it is for fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes.  Try again!

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.3  Freefaller  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago
The universe and its creation are proof enough that God, it’s intelligent creator exists.  

Actually they are proof of the non-existence of your god or anyone elses god.

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.3    3 months ago
You are looking in all the wrong places

Should I be looking outside of the infinite universe? You got a map to this magical place of wonder that PROVES 'God' created the universe? 

 
 
2.1.5    replied to  MrFrost @2.1.4    3 months ago
Should I be looking outside of the infinite universe?

E.A   Yes see any " Physics Book " or ask any one to explain " Gravity " and why they have to come up with " Multi Verse "

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  @2.1.5    3 months ago
Yes see any " Physics Book " or ask any one to explain " Gravity " and why they have to come up with " Multi Verse "

If the theory of "gravity" was that a guy named "gravity" made things fall towards the center of massive celestial bodies, I'd say you had a point. But that's not the theory of gravity, and it uses no "multi-verse" in its theorem.

"Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole, from which nothing—not even light—can escape once past the black hole's event horizon. However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force which causes any two bodies to be attracted to each other, with the force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

 
 
2.1.7    replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.6    3 months ago
If the theory of "gravity"

E.A  Thank you for your " Name Game "

 But see real Physics, and how  even with the latest so called " God Particle " Muon Higgs whatever one wants to call it, it still does not answer fundamental questions as to what allowed the Big Bang, now if you want to know more ask for the reopening of the  Blog " BigBang Vs Creation " it is all written and explained there, in pure MATH! Have fun!

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  @2.1.5    3 months ago
Yes see any " Physics Book "

I have several physics books, (it's a hobby), none, not even one, mentions, "god". 

 
 
2.1.9    replied to  MrFrost @2.1.8    3 months ago
I have several physics books, (it's a hobby), none, not even one, mentions, "god". 

E.A  If You says so , Most of the ones I know have at least one on list   mentioned such as

, under " God Particle " have fun!

 
 
2.1.10    replied to  @2.1.9    3 months ago

Some one fix this crappy editor!

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.11  Freefaller  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.4    3 months ago
Should I be looking outside of the infinite universe? You got a map to this magical place of wonder that PROVES 'God' created the universe? 

My opinion you should look in your imagination cause that's the only place magic or god exists.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.11    3 months ago

Wait, magic does exist! Don't you know there are 3 hidden schools of witchcraft and wizardry, where kids Learn about magical spells, fantastic beasts, and how to ride broomsticks? jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  @2.1.9    3 months ago

You mean the Higgs Boson? Not sure that's "god."

 
 
2.1.14    replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.13    3 months ago
You mean the Higgs Boson? Not sure that's "god."

E.A I am Sure you are sure it is not, but the point was that it was referred as " God Particle " for a reason that might well be beyond the " logic " of some!

IE: Those quandaries still continue and are even more confusing because what the last Physics have shown is that the " Higgs Boson " does not have the energy level that was once thought by some, and it does not cause " Gravity " as so many " Believed and Based their whole LIFES Studies upon! "

 
 
epistte
2.1.15  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago
You are looking in all the wrong places.  The universe and its creation are proof enough that God, it’s intelligent creator exists.

That is known as an argument from design or the Watchmakers Fallacy. Just because a universe exists doesn't prove that your god or the gods of 100 other religions created it.  When will you accept that belief has no place in science or logic/ 

This entire thread is a situation of "Identify the logical fallacy that XXX-for-Palin is citing". 

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.12    3 months ago
and how to ride broomsticks? 

My x-wife gives weekly classes. 

 
 
epistte
2.1.17  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.16    3 months ago

I should schedule an appointment to have my broom winterized.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  @2.1.14    3 months ago
but the point was that it was referred as " God Particle " for a reason that might well be beyond the " logic " of some!

"The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics, produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, one of the fields in particle physics theory. It is named after physicist Peter Higgs, who in 1964, along with six other scientists, proposed the mechanism, which suggested the existence of such a particle. Its existence was confirmed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations based on collisions in the LHC at CERN.

On December 10, 2013, two of the physicists, Peter Higgs and François Englert, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their theoretical predictions. Although Higgs's name has come to be associated with this theory, several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 independently developed different parts of it.

In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic, although the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs himself, who regard it as sensationalistic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

So dumb ass believers and a small number of ignorant media who are trying to come up with headlines called it the "God Particle", no one else. Is that really the "reason" you want to hang your hat on? Click bait?

 
 
2.1.19    replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.18    3 months ago
So dumb ass believers and a small number of ignorant media who are trying to come up with headlines called it the "God Particle", no one else. Is that really the "reason" you want to hang your hat on? Click bait?

E.A  You seem to know what is in My Mind so YOU tell us!

Say Was there Gravity before the Theoretical BigBang?

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.20  Freefaller  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.12    3 months ago
Don't you know there are 3 hidden schools of witchcraft and wizardry, where kids Learn about magical spells, fantastic beasts, and how to ride broomsticks? 

Got me to thinking. Ya know in a thousand or so years with a few wars, massive indoctrination, severe tortures and punishments and of course some good PR maybe we could create a new religion out of that series.

At the very least it would be more fun than the currently popular fictional beliefs

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.20    3 months ago

I doubt you would even need torture. Just make the religion fun and people might come to on their own. After all, who wouldn't want to believe thet can cast magic spells. Maybe we can build our own "ark" full of displays of  fantastical beasts and get less than intelligent city or state legislatures to pay for it. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.22  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  @2.1.19    3 months ago
Say Was there Gravity before the Theoretical BigBang?

if your asking did things fall down before that catholic priest first theorized the big bang theory?

of course :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 
 
2.1.23    replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.22    3 months ago
did things fall down

E.A  lol ,, yes and what the " Devout Factionalist " do not want to comprehend is that complexity of ANY BigBang, let alone that one, and how critical GRAVITY is,, so if you want to chat about it please go right ahead! Fall all Over   Roll all you want!! 

But never mistake Centripetal with centrifugal as they DO!!!

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  @2.1.14    3 months ago

The "God Particle" is just a nickname, and a misnomer at that. You're really grasping at straws if you think the name itself has any significance. You seem to be reading into a name just a little too much.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.25  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @2.1.23    3 months ago
Devout Factionalist

What the hell is that?  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @2.1.14    3 months ago
Higgs Boson " does not have the energy level that was once thought by some, and it does not cause " Gravity " as so many " Believed and Based their whole LIFES Studies upon! "

Whenever the science-ignorant try to wade in on science like this, hilarity is sure to follow. Thanks for the best laugh since "devout factionalist"  so far today.   You're on a comedic roll. 

 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    3 months ago

This, from "jesus isn't fake news" web site.. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, I am sure they are all science based and factual. This is like using the bible to prove the existence of 'god'.. Holy crap, that's hilarious. 

 
 
MrFrost
4  MrFrost    3 months ago

Why would god created an infinite universe, and plop humans on one insignificant rock on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy? Why all the extra space? 

 
 
Heartland American
4.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @4    3 months ago

What makes you think we are alone or His only intelligent creation?  

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    3 months ago
What makes you think we are alone

Actually I don't, and I participate in the SETI @ home project. But why would god make other beings so far away that even if we did know they were there, would literally take us millions of years to get there? Why not put them close, so we could, I don't know, actually communicate in some way with them? 

Your theory that god created the universe is so full of holes it's scary. 

 
 
cjcold
4.1.2  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    3 months ago

I also know folk at SETI and believe in their mission. God doesn't enter into my idea of infinity.

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    3 months ago

We are probably not alone. But that doesn't mean there's a god . There's just no evidence of one.

 
 
4.1.4    replied to  cjcold @4.1.2    3 months ago
I also know folk at SETI and believe in their mission. God doesn't enter into my idea of infinity.

E.A  and Yet SETI and Most Scifi, is reliant on " God " before Jumping the gun ask for the " definition of God " according to them!

IE: Entities Far more advanced then HUMANS of Earth, Able to terraform and seed lifeforms!

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  @4.1.4    3 months ago

"Advanced entities"  does not equate to a deity, especially the idea of a biblical god being touted as the "creator " of the universe. 

 
 
4.1.6    replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.5    3 months ago
"Advanced entities"  does not equate to a deity,

E.A One only for You!:::

 And  " We " are to take YOUR  word for this " Revelation "

The Last I Spock with those that SET Up SETI, they said " Any Advanced Civilization that can terraform and seed life to that Life it be as if a " God " so you go and argue with them!

 As to SciFi, How many different series finish with " The Possibility of Nirvana " that ios another way of saying " we have attained to a status of being gods "?

As to any " Thinking Person " who can  know the " Unknowns "?

 
 
Heartland American
4.1.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    3 months ago

We are the only world with intelligent beings God created that actually fell to the deception of Lucifer and his 1/3 of the angels who were expelled from Heaven with him.  We will have no contact with any of Gods created beings from around the universe until after the 2nd coming.  

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.7    3 months ago

That's nice. Prove it! 

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  @4.1.6    3 months ago

Apparently you use the term "god" more loosely. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  @4.1.6    3 months ago
The Last I Spock with those that SET Up SETI

Don't take Spock's name in vain.

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  cjcold @4.1.2    3 months ago
I also know folk at SETI and believe in their mission.

Well, I cannot claim to KNOW people that work there, but it is a worthy project. With the same infrastructure they also looks for cures to cancer, etc.. 

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.7    3 months ago
We are the only world with intelligent beings

You can prove that, right? 

 
 
Heartland American
4.1.13  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.8    3 months ago

You and Bertrand and many others will receive your proof together.  

 
 
Heartland American
4.1.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.12    3 months ago

I wouldn’t try to because I never said that.  

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.14    3 months ago

I quoted what you posted, so yea, you kinda did say that. 

 
 
Heartland American
4.1.16  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.15    3 months ago

You quoted part of what I said, leaving out the part that clearly contradicts what you said that I said. [Deleted]

[I
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.13    3 months ago

Still have nothing but irrational and emotional based rhetoric I see!

 
 
epistte
4.1.18  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.10    3 months ago
Don't take Spock's name in vain.

That deserves to be on a bumper sticker.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.13    3 months ago
You and Bertrand and many others will receive your proof together.

Ah yes, the last refuge of those who can't produce an actual brother bigger than someone else who's supposedly going to beat up your dissenters, the old "You're gonna get it someday! Just you wait!"...

 
 
Heartland American
4.1.20  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.19    3 months ago

It’s a fate I wish upon no one but too many will sadly choose to not believe no matter what is presented as evidence.  Blessed are those who having not seen yet believe.  

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.20    3 months ago
Blessed are those who having not seen yet believe.

Parents: "Hey, would you jump off a bridge just because your friend does it?"

Religious parent: "Hey, jump off this bridge, an invisible man in the sky told me to tell you to do it..."

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.20    3 months ago

When you can prove that nonsense you spew, then maybe we'll consider believing it. Until then, believing nonsense without proof isn't blessed. It's delusional.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.22    3 months ago
When you can prove that nonsense you spew, then maybe we'll consider believing it.

Nay-say all you want, his implausible "Squish your head" thumb and forefinger death trap technology is almost perfected. Now all he has to do is get you within his visual pinch range and your head will go "Pop!". Ignore his mystically inspired ravings at your own peril!

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.23    3 months ago

And nay say I shall until proof is provided.

 
 
TᵢG
4.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.20    3 months ago
It’s a fate I wish upon no one but too many will sadly choose to not believe no matter what is presented as evidence.

This is pure projection.   By the very definition of faith, religious beliefs are not based on evidence.   There is no evidence for a God - certainly none for the Abrahamic God - indeed, quite the opposite.    You have presented this seed as evidence for God yet this seed consists of two philosophical arguments (flawed as I noted @8) and a bunch of mere non-sequitur claims.   

To wit, you have not presented evidence of God - not even close.   Nothing whatsoever.   And you must realize this, yet you proudly claim you have nonetheless.   jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif   

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    3 months ago
What makes you think we are alone or His only intelligent creation?  

The sentence is an example of self-negation. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.27  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    3 months ago
Your theory that god created the universe is so full of holes it's scary. 

Hey, was that an entendre double?  Cuz, like the universe IS full of holes---get it?  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.28  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.7    3 months ago

And, with that, Jesus weeps. 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
4.1.29  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.27    3 months ago

I've completed the fence painting Sensei,

Wax on wax off....what's Next?

 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @4.1.29    3 months ago

Perhaps a bath and don't forget to use soap again.

 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    3 months ago

Why would god create MACS J1149+2223? 

 
 
cjcold
5.1  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @5    3 months ago

Watched Contact with Jody Foster last night. The Sagan book was better. 

 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  cjcold @5.1    3 months ago

No arguments here! 

 
 
Heartland American
6  seeder  Heartland American    3 months ago

Specific complex designs do not come to be by accident through natural causes.  The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

 
 
Gordy327
6.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @6    3 months ago

Thats an argument from ignorance fallacy. 

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1    3 months ago

... and an argument from incredulity.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @6    3 months ago
 The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

And an intelligent designer is far too complex to have come to be except through creation by an immortal galactic spirit bunny...

How you can't see the flaw in that argument is truly a wonderment. 

 
 
epistte
6.3  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @6    3 months ago
Specific complex designs do not come to be by accident through natural causes.  The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

What parts of the human body are so complex that they require an intelligent designer to exist? 

 
 
TᵢG
6.4  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @6    3 months ago
The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

By that reasoning:  God is far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.

 
 
epistte
6.4.1  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6.4    3 months ago
By that reasoning:  God is far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.

Since someone cannot will themselves into existence, the logical question is "who created God"? 

 
 
Gordy327
6.4.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.4    3 months ago

Oh TiG, there you go using logic and reasoning in a clearly illogical and unreasonable article. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @6    3 months ago
Specific complex designs do not come to be by accident through natural causes.

Yet,, that is precisely how they "come to be." Although, "accident" is, of course, not the scientific term for that process.  It's called randomness. Even the slightest acquaintance with the sciences would have taught you that. 

 
 
Gordy327
6.5.1  Gordy327  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.5    3 months ago

Who said he was aquainted with science? His posts on scientific matters and principles makes it abundantly clear he has no understanding of actual science. He seems to think belief equates to science.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.5.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.1    3 months ago
Who said he was aquainted with science?

  I'm sure he must have been in some science class at some point in his very deficient education but his mind was so stuffed with god blather none of it took.  

 
 
Gordy327
6.5.3  Gordy327  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.5.2    3 months ago

In other words,  he might have bothered to show up for class, but that's about it. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.5.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.3    2 months ago

Precisely

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    3 months ago

I really wish Noah would have put the dinosaurs on the ark.

320

 
 
TᵢG
7.1  TᵢG  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    3 months ago
I really wish Noah would have put the dinosaurs on the ark.

The YECs believe he did.

 
 
MrFrost
7.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    3 months ago
The YECs believe he did.

They also think The Flintstones is a documentary. 

 
 
epistte
7.1.2  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    3 months ago

A dingbat preacher claims that civil war soldiers fought dinosaurs. 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/odd-news/96736/preacher-claims-us-civil-war-soldiers-fought-dinosaurs

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    3 months ago
The YECs believe he did.

What I find funny is that some researchers have concluded that the mass of the 70,000 animals that would have needed to be on the ark just barely could have been kept afloat by the ark dimensions described in the bible. But those are based on existing animals. If you add extinct animals or dinosaurs it makes it physically impossible to have stayed afloat for even two minutes let alone forty days and forty nights. So one could say, YEC's sink their own hypothesis...

 
 
TᵢG
7.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.3    3 months ago

The ark would have sunk without a single animal on board.   It was supposedly made of wood.   At those dimensions, modern engineering (hell, even ancient ship-building knowledge) shows the ark would have twisted at sea -springing leaks- and sunk.

 
 
Heartland American
7.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    3 months ago

I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark. 

 
 
7.2.1    replied to  Heartland American @7.2    3 months ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark

E.A   Just a little interesting side note::

 How many of ALL life forms could survive ON the Oceans without the need to be ON/IN the ark?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @7.2    3 months ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark. 

But your YEC compadres claim that the ark did have dinosaurs:  Dinosaurs on the Ark

Ken Ham would be very disappointed if one of his Young Earth Creationist kinsmen did not 'correctly' take the Bible literally.

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.1    3 months ago

How many ocean species would become  extinct if the amount of fresh water rainfall (enough to cover and submerge all landmasses) diluted the salinity of the oceans? Of course, logical points like that often fall on deaf ears of creationists or biblical literalists.

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @7.2    3 months ago

Well known YEC Ken Hamm sure believes dinosaurs were on the ark. What makes your belief right? Certainly not fossil or geological evidence.

 
 
7.2.5    replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    3 months ago
logical points like that often fall on deaf ears

E.A Yes I have noticed as IF the salinity would not  change with evaporation!!!!

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.5    3 months ago

Salinity would change with the sheer volume of fresh water entering the oceans. Evaporation of the water would also take years. And where would all that water go? That amount of evaporation would cause a cloud cover of the planet and block out the sun.

 
 
7.2.7    replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    3 months ago
s. And where would all that water go?

E.A   So Much for your " Understanding of the Bible " Why not read it and find out?!

IE: It makes Clear where the " Water Came from " and it also make Clear " where the water went " :-)

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.7    3 months ago

Fairy tales is hardly indicative of reality or rationality. 

 
 
7.2.9    replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.8    3 months ago
Fairy tales is hardly indicative of reality or rationality

E.A I agree absolutely  like that a BigBang Brought about " Something out of Nothing " and the Laughable mater then " Dust bunnies "  Melted and Formed Solid  form. ( See how they can still not explain Protoplanet Formation ALL Faith No Science )

And that some " Magical Electrical ZAP "  Caused Over 400 Proteins and Some Magical Number of LEFT spinning ONLY Amino Acids to form a " Single Life " form and it Magically Procreated, even Amoebas would Laugh at that one !!! 

 
 
7.2.10    replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    3 months ago
That amount of evaporation would cause a cloud cover of the planet and block out the sun.

E.A   LOL     as I said Read the BIBLE LOL::

 For that is exactly what it Says about " Water Above   … and water … "   so much for Knowing what one critics on!! :-))

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.10    3 months ago

As I said, fairy tales does not equate to reality or rationality. 

 
 
Heartland American
7.2.12  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    3 months ago

There is no evidence of any dinosaur on earth post flood.  I don’t believe that God directed them to the ark. Mr. Ham and I disagree on that. 

 
 
7.2.13    replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.11    3 months ago
not equate to reality or rationality. 

E.A  You got That part right, but ,,, but …

 LOL Thanks for the laughs I have had enough for now, remember what was said " Laughter is the best Medicine " till next time I need a Laugh!!

  Keep digging :-)

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.13    3 months ago

More like I have all parts right. You, not so much. Especially when you use circular reasoning. Now that's funny.

 
 
epistte
7.2.15  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @7.2    3 months ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark.

Do you believe that dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago?

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @7.2.12    3 months ago

Again, what makes your beliefs more valid or true than Mr. Hamm's?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @7.2.12    3 months ago
There is no evidence of any dinosaur on earth post flood.

Indeed.   There is no evidence of any dinosaur living 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago (well before the YEC Earth was created) or 1,000,000 years ago or even 10,000,000 years ago.  They went extinct 65 million (65,000,000) years ago.

I don’t believe that God directed them to the ark. Mr. Ham and I disagree on that. 

You dare think Ham might possibly be wrong about this?   His world is rather replete with dinosaurs coexisting with humans.   He and countless millions of YECs are teaching their children that all the various species of dinosaurs evolved from a pair of baby dinosaurs from the ark.   

You are quite correct that there is no evidence of a dinosaur living 5,000 years ago.   So a good piece of evidence and a good conclusion that no dinosaurs were around after the alleged ark.   But why accept the 5,000 year findings of science and reject the 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or indeed the 65,000,000 findings of science?   

 
 
epistte
7.2.18  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    3 months ago
How many ocean species would become  extinct if the amount of fresh water rainfall (enough to cover and submerge all landmasses) diluted the salinity of the oceans? Of course, logical points like that often fall on deaf ears of creationists or biblical literalists.

Where did the flood water drain away to for the landmasses to be exposed again? The atmosphere was obviously already saturated and it would take millions of years for that amount of water to trickle down into aquifers. 

 
 
7.2.19    replied to  epistte @7.2.18    3 months ago
Where did the flood water drain away

E.A   Ahhh Another one that critics what it has not read, while claiming to know it all about it, I wonder why??

HINT: And the Land rose out of the …..   

 and what was that Ancient Elephant species discovered with food still in its mouth all frozen, indicating " Instant Freezing.:]"   that type to " Climatic Shock " would to what for the polar regions  just a thought  for the " 90% Sarcasm 10 % .. " club!!

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.19    3 months ago

Rising land masses is the result of tectonic activity, and also requires millions of years. Once again, your biblical based explanations are not only irrational and illogical, they are refuted by actual science.

 
 
7.2.21    replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.20    3 months ago
they are refuted by actual science.

E.A  Yes thanks I am sure ALL readers would have noticed who gave answers worthy of thought and who avoided answering ALL of the Science questions Posed, well done  ~

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  @7.2.21    3 months ago

The only one avoiding science here is you and Xx. Here's a tip: the bible is not a science book. Neither is it's fairy tales reality.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  @7.2.19    3 months ago

You might want to inform whatever translation program you're using that "critic" isn't a verb.

 
 
pat wilson
7.2.24  pat wilson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.23    3 months ago

Not to mention referring to another member as "it". Rather crude.

 
 
7.2.25    replied to  pat wilson @7.2.24    3 months ago
Not to mention referring to another member as "it". Rather crude.

E.A Interesting!!!   But     ….

 Actually in a Lot of Countries now one is not allowed to use a " Gender specific term " for if gender is unknow or unwanted, what is the " gender Neutral " term ?

 
 
epistte
7.2.26  epistte  replied to  @7.2.19    3 months ago
E.A   Ahhh Another one that critics what it has not read, while claiming to know it all about it, I wonder why??

HINT: And the Land rose out of the …..   

 and what was that Ancient Elephant species discovered with food still in its mouth all frozen, indicating " Instant Freezing.:]"   that type to " Climatic Shock " would to what for the polar regions  just a thought  for the " 90% Sarcasm 10 % .. " club!!

Geology doesn't work that way. Land cannot rise 40' worldwide.

 
 
epistte
7.2.27  epistte  replied to  @7.2.21    3 months ago
E.A  Yes thanks I am sure ALL readers would have noticed who gave answers worthy of thought and who avoided answering ALL of the Science questions Posed, well done  ~

Say WHUT?

 
 
7.2.28    replied to  epistte @7.2.26    3 months ago
Geology doesn't work that way. Land cannot rise 40' worldwide.

E.A  " World Wide " LOL and who said that, and offcourse the " 90% Sarcasm and 10% " Club would know it all right?

 
 
pat wilson
7.2.29  pat wilson  replied to  @7.2.25    3 months ago
Actually in a Lot of Countries now one is not allowed to use a " Gender specific term " for if gender is unknow or unwanted,

I've travelled a bit and know that in France, Italy, Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica they absolutely use gender specific terms. Please tell us in which countries "one is not allowed to use a "gender specific term" "? 

 
 
7.2.30    replied to  pat wilson @7.2.29    3 months ago
I've travelled a bit and know that in France, Italy, Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica they absolutely use gender specific terms.

E.A  " A Bit " of yesterday, does nothing for today and tomorrow, the net is your friend search and find!

 
 
epistte
7.2.31  epistte  replied to  @7.2.28    3 months ago
E.A  " World Wide " LOL and who said that, and offcourse the " 90% Sarcasm and 10% " Club would know it all right?

Since the Earth was covered worldwide with 40' of water, all of the land would have to rise 40'. That isn't geologically possible, especially in the space of 2000 years. 

 
 
pat wilson
7.2.32  pat wilson  replied to  @7.2.30    3 months ago

I've just returned from two of these countries. I know my comment to be accurate. Please answer my question, which countries do not allow "one to use a " Gender specific term " ?

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.33  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  epistte @7.2.31    3 months ago
Since the Earth was covered worldwide with 40' of water

I thought it was supposed to be enough to cover mountains. That's how the Young Earthers say seashell fossils got up there, right? 

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.34  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Heartland American @7.2.12    3 months ago
There is no evidence of any dinosaur on earth post flood.  I don’t believe that God directed them to the ark. Mr. Ham and I disagree on that. 

Help me out here. How old is the Earth, and when did the flood occur?

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.33    3 months ago

YECs can't even keep their myths straight. Some can't even agree with dinosaurs on the Ark or not. Watching them stumble over their own toes is rather amusing though. 

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.34    3 months ago

You will not get an answer, but yes Xxjefferson#51 has stated that he is a YEC.

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.38  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.36    3 months ago

I was just wondering if he agreed with Ken Ham on the dates, because according to Ham, the Earth is 6021 years old, and the flood happened in 2348 BC.

That puts it about 200 years after the Great Pyramid was built (which was somewhere around 2570 BC), right at the end of the Fifth Dynasty.

How dumb can these people be? The world wasn't wiped clean in 2348 BC. The Sixth Dynasty started right after the Fifth ended in about 2345 BC, and Egypt was still there. Everything else was still there, too. Don't these people know that recorded history actually goes back that far? Information is sparse, but it's there. Obviously, there was no long break in civilization after the Fifth Dynasty during which Noah's kids incestuously repopulated the planet (the animals on the Ark, too).

Hell, for that matter, there were no dinosaurs roaming around Egypt before the flood. If there were, they would have surely had dinosaur gods and dinosaur hieroglyphs (as I'm sure you know, the Egyptian pantheon was nature-based, and gods were often depicted in animal form). There's no way they would have missed some of the biggest and most ferocious beasts ever to walk the Earth. Hell, some of the slower herbivores might have even made great beasts of burden for pyramid construction. :)

YEC is about as dumb as it gets. Absolute, unadulterated bullshit.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.38    3 months ago

YEC is the epitome of anti-critical-thinking.   People like Ken Ham make statements and the flock basically accepts it without using their minds.

Ham, for example, dismisses the old Earth by saying science cannot possibly know the age of the Earth because none of the scientists were there.   Yes, the only real science per Ham is what we can observe today.  He likes to note that artifacts do not have birthdate labels attached to them.  He goes on to say that there is a solution.   He asserts God was there and God tells us the age of the Earth in the Bible (referring now to the analysis of 17th century Archbishop Ussher who calculated the age of the Earth from the Bible).

Other historical records are also dismissed if they do not correlate with the Bible.  So you can just toss out your Egyptian history because none of that is the word of God.


If I did not observe human beings engage in such reasoning I would have never believed it possible.   But 10% or so of the USA accepts this nonsense as truth.   The YECs are my prime example of serious, organized dumbing down of the younger generations.

 
 
epistte
7.2.40  epistte  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.38    3 months ago

I'll just leave this here for other's amusement,

Stonehenge is perhaps the world’s most famous prehistoric monument. It was built in several stages: the first monument was an early henge monument, built about 5,000 years ago, and the unique stone circle was erected in the late Neolithic period about 2500 BC. In the early Bronze Age many burial mounds were built nearby.
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.41  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.39    3 months ago
He goes on to say that there is a solution.   He asserts God was there and God tells us the age of the Earth in the Bible

I remember him doing that in the Bill Nye debate. "I've got this book..."

How I wish Bill had asked him about the date of the flood, and then said something like, "2348? What about Egypt? We have a record of Pharaohs going back farther than that. No flood." 

If I did not observe human beings engage in such reasoning I would have never believed it possible.

Me either. I still can't believe that people go to Ham's Creation Museum and Ark Experience...and claim to actually believe what they see! They're on YouTube doing it. It's astonishing.

The sickest thing I've seen on YouTube having to do with Ken Ham is a clip of him in front of a theater full of little children, mocking evolution and indoctrinating them with his bullshit. It's disgusting. I don't remember where I saw it or I'd link it.

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.42  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  epistte @7.2.40    3 months ago

I thought about referencing Stonehenge, but ancient Britain lacks the detailed chronological record that ancient Egypt has.

I guess I could always just say, "I've got his book, it's called Sarum."

Nah... :)

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.43  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.41    3 months ago
How I wish Bill had asked him about the date of the flood, and then said something like, "2348? What about Egypt?

He would have glibly responded that he admits he is a Christian and that he holds the Bible divine.  Basically he dismisses anything that contradicts the Bible.  

How do you debate 'la la la ... I cannot hear you'?

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.44  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.43    3 months ago

Or how can one debate close minded delusion?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.45  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.44    3 months ago
Or how can one debate close minded delusion?

I've seen lots of conservatives speak slower and raise their volume when they're trying to communicate with someone who doesn't speak English. Maybe all we need to do is just start speaking slowly and loudly as if they're mostly deaf and dumb (the latter being self evident) and start with "THE... EARTH... IS... FOUR.... AND .... A....HALF....BILLION ....YEARS ....OLD.....OKAY? ....IF.....YOU .....UNDERSTAND.....ME..... BLINK..... TWICE....".

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.46  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.45    3 months ago

That might still be too complicated. 

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.47  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.44    3 months ago

Clearly there is no debate.   One can counter religious declarations with science and logic and in many cases, such as right here, the response is empty platitudes.   Not even a hint of intellectual discourse.   Then in other cases when an attempt is actually made to intellectually support the religious claim, the debate quickly devolves into emotion.   Understandably, I suppose, because it must be frustrating to try to defend a belief based on faith sans evidence (and in many cases in spite of evidence and logic to the contrary).

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.48  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.47    3 months ago

So true. Notice in this thread alone how certain theists replies went straight into emotional rhetoric, including threats from their cosmic boogeyman. They seem unable to distinguish religious belief from science and simply tune out when their arguments are blown out of the water with actual science or when they're challenged to support their beliefs and assertions. I've always said there is a distinct lack of intellectual integrity from them and this article and the theistic/emotional based replies only reinforces that assessment.

 
 
Krishna
7.2.49  Krishna  replied to  Heartland American @7.2    2 months ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark. 

That's terrible-- that's discriminatory! 

And its racist!

Its sad to think that Gad is actually a racist!!!

(# dinosaurslivesmatter ...?)

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.50  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    2 months ago
But your YEC compadres claim that the ark did have dinosaurs

Even these people can't keep track of all their kindred spirits' goofiness. 

 
 
Krishna
7.3  Krishna  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 months ago

I really wish Noah would have put the dinosaurs on the ark.

Well, one things for sure--if She did put on Dinosaurs, it would have made for a much more interesting (& exciting!) story.

 And future generations (generations of humans, not necessarily of Dinosaurs) would have been able to make some really exciting movies of what transpired way back then...

 
 
TᵢG
8  TᵢG    3 months ago

These are philosophical arguments - they are not evidence.   That said, these arguments are valid but not sound.   Here is why:

Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause

True.  That which BEGINS to exist would have a cause.   

Clearly existence itself is true as evidenced by our presence.   And existence cannot emerge from nothing (talking about pure nothing now - nothing at all).   This means that existence is eternal.   There is your uncaused cause - existence itself.    If you wish to call existence itself 'God' then join the pantheists in making a sound declaration.

Bottom line, premise one simply states that something is eternal.   I agree.   Something must be eternal.

2. The Universe Began to Exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause

Yes.  The fact that the universe began to exist means that the universe is the effect of a cause.   The cause, however, is not necessarily sentient.

NOTE:   The universe has a cause is the only conclusion.   This argument does not establish the cause as sentient.

Teleological Argument

1. All Designs have a Designer

By definition of the word 'design'.   If you say something is designed you are stipulating that the thing was conceived by sentient intent.   

2. The Universe has a Complex Design

Unsubstantiated claim.   You must prove that the universe was designed.    I agree the universe is complex (as human beings define complexity) but not that our universe was designed because you offer no evidence that the universe was designed.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a Designer

Conclusion is not possible because of unproven assertion above.


Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful.

These two argument fail to demonstrate that our universe was created (simply asserted it).   Further this entire seed does not establish the cause to be spaceless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent or purposeful.   The only supported attribute of the above is timeless.   The author simply states the desired conclusion while failing miserably to support the conclusion.

 
 
Krishna
8.1  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @8    2 months ago
1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause

But why do you assume it began to exist? Perhaps it has always existed..so it never "began to exist" -- it has always existed and always will!

(Unless. of course,  Kim Jung Un is telling us "alternative facts"-- and is secretly continuing his nuclear programme without letting Pompeo know what he has up his sleeves! Maybe 'Ole Kim is hoodwinking us-- and the entire North American continent will be destroyed-- whenever Kim wants!

 
 
TᵢG
8.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @8.1    2 months ago
But why do you assume it began to exist? Perhaps it has always existed..so it never "began to exist" -- it has always existed and always will!

That was a quote of the first premise of the argument provided by the seed - I did not write it, I quoted it. 

 
 
lennylynx
9  lennylynx    3 months ago

Even if there is a supreme supernatural entity that judges us, a completely insane hypothesis with no basis whatsoever in reality or even reasonableness, I reject completely that this being would care if we believed it existed or not.  The way Christians portray their God as this angry, petty, insecure being who needs our approval, is a blatant blasphemy against it.

 
 
TᵢG
9.1  TᵢG  replied to  lennylynx @9    3 months ago

Agreed.   I have oft noted that the Bible is actually rather good evidence that the God it describes does NOT exist.

 
 
Gordy327
9.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1    3 months ago

It's too bad creationists and other theists don't want to hear that. They seem to prefer something that echos their own beliefs or caters to their emotional needs.

 
 
9.2    replied to  lennylynx @9    3 months ago
I reject completely that this being

E.A why would that " Being you mentioned " care about what you think?

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
9.3  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  lennylynx @9    3 months ago
The way Christians portray their God as this angry, petty, insecure being who needs our approval, is a blatant blasphemy against it.

Nah. It's not blasphemy. The first four commandments are all about that. Bill Maher did a bit about it last night. 

:)

 
 
10      3 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
10.1    replied to  @10    3 months ago
I wonder is this is evidence of Creation or Evolution?

E.A " I wonder IF  " this was corrected But, But,, have I said this elsewhere, could it be the same " but " with the same " editor "?

 
 
epistte
10.2  epistte  replied to  @10    3 months ago
I wonder is this is evidence of Creation or Evolution?

 One states " You Sin you will Die "  and the other states " DNA Critical point of CD4 T Cells brings about Apoptosis "  One says much the same as the other, right?

So fighting against it, is it environmental anarchy?

Anal sex is not limited to gay men. There are far more hetrerosexual couples that take part in anal sex than the 2% of gay/bi men.   Do you desire to create the buttsecks police to keep us safe from AIDS?  Will they also get their own version of COPS TV show?

 
 
10.2.1    replied to  epistte @10.2    3 months ago
Anal sex is not limited to gay men

E.A   Who has this Anal Sex fixation??

 But now that YOU brought it up the CDC puts it at what " High Risk " activity list?

AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?

 
 
epistte
10.2.2  epistte  replied to  @10.2.1    3 months ago
E.A   Who has this Anal Sex fixation??

 But now that YOU brought it up the CDC puts it at what " High Risk " activity list?

AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?

How exactly do heterosexual couples take part in anal sex if you believe that I hinted that only men have an anus? The next sentance is not "family friendly", so I'll save Perrie the effort of purple inking it and just stop here.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  epistte @10.2    3 months ago
Will they also get their own version of COPS TV show?

"Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come on you..."

A certain someones obsession with anal sechs makes me wonder, is this just another case of "the lady doth protest, too much, me thinks"..?

 
 
MrFrost
10.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  @10.2.1    3 months ago
AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?

WTF?! 

 
 
MrFrost
10.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @10.2    3 months ago

800

 
 
Skrekk
10.3  Skrekk  replied to  @10    3 months ago
The vast majority of new cases in China were transmitted through sexual activity.

Somehow you manage to twist any topic into something about butt sechs.    That's a very weird obsession you've got.

 
 
10.3.1    replied to  Skrekk @10.3    3 months ago
Somehow you manage to twist any topic into something about butt sechs.    That's a very weird obsession you've got.

E.A  Thank YOU, for making it so obvious what Bigotry does!

 So tell me did I add that line or was it part of the Article Posted?

 
 
lennylynx
10.3.2  lennylynx  replied to  @10.3.1    3 months ago

Don't worry about Skrekk's criticism, EA, there is nothing wrong with being obsessed with butt sex, nothing at all! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
10.4    replied to  @10    3 months ago
were transmitted through

E.A  So how save are those around carriers?

Credit: Shutterstock

After a 4-year-old boy in Portugal was diagnosed with HIV, the biggest question was how he got the infection.

His mother, for example, didn't have it (women with HIV can pass the virus to babies). An investigation revealed a surprising source: leaky blisters on the boy's father's skin.

While it's well-known that a mother can pass HIV to her child during pregnancy and childbirth, transmission from father to child is very rare. The new report, published Sept. 20 in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, describes one of the few documented cases of this happening, the authors said.

 
 
MrFrost
10.5  MrFrost  replied to  @10    3 months ago

Such a kind an loving 'god' that would create a virus that kills so indiscriminately. 

 
 
10.5.1    replied to  MrFrost @10.5    3 months ago
Such a kind an loving 'god' that would create a virus that kills so indiscriminately.

E.A Yes Indeed and Jesus called " The God of this World " also as " The Father of the Lie " and if you want to know what His Father and His Angels will do with this " god " read Revelations!

Shame so many have been Fooled by this " Father of the Lie " to think of " Wolfs in Sheeps Clothing " and  Followers of the Creator God!

 
 
10.5.2    replied to  MrFrost @10.5    3 months ago
create a virus that kills so indiscriminately

E.A  So tell me " you god " evolution and Apoptosis, how does that fit in?

 
 
10.5.3    replied to  MrFrost @10.5    3 months ago
kills so indiscriminately

E.A  " Indiscriminately " having reading or comprehension problems?? 1-4 % of populace 74 - 96 % of pathogens and deaths, does that sound indiscriminate?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.4  Gordy327  replied to  @10.5.2    3 months ago

So tell me, how is evolution a "god" exactly? 

 
 
10.5.5    replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.4    3 months ago
So tell me, how is evolution a "god" exactly? 

E.A say pretty please and I will consider explaining the Basics!

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  @10.5.1    3 months ago
if you want to know what His Father and His Angels will do with this " god " read Revelations!

Why do you refer us to a book of fairy tales for predictions?

Absurd.

 
 
10.5.7    replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.6    3 months ago
Why do you refer us to a book of fairy tales for predictions? Absurd.

E.A  Lets see:

  Ahhh yes I was asked about that " Book " and it seems this seed is about that also!

 But why does it bother you so, I mean I spoke about Star Wars and Star Trek, did that bothered you also?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.8  Gordy327  replied to  @10.5.5    3 months ago

In other words, you have nothing and are just spewing your usual BS! Got it.

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  @10.5.7    3 months ago
Ahhh yes I was asked about that " Book "

No, you weren't.  You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens.

You didn't speak about Star Trek.  You just couldn't spell "spoke" correctly.

 
 
10.5.10    replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.9    3 months ago
No, you weren't.  You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens. You didn't speak about Star Trek.  You just couldn't spell "spoke" correctly.

E.A is That a Personal Attack?

 and WHY are you fixated with Me?

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  @10.5.10    3 months ago
E.A is That a Personal Attack?

How is pointing out that you misspelled "spoke" a personal attack?

And how is responding to you a few times a fixation?

If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.

 
 
10.5.12    replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.11    3 months ago
How is pointing out that you misspelled "spoke" a personal attack? And how is responding to you a few times a fixation?

E.A as Usual I provide that Facts::

 I did Mention Star Wars and Star Trek now that makes it as I " Spoke " about them

 Then to Your Fixation NO one else bothered to correct the Spock to Spoke but YOU

 Why would of all the Words, all the Comments from Hundreds of people here over that time frame, someone guess who! just " happen " to pick that " misspelling "?

 
 
10.5.13    replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.11    3 months ago
If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.

E.A Interesting,, so for over a decade you followed me around, and all you learned is what I say about HIV?

 That be a terrible Fail, so tell me that article from China what was that about?

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  @10.5.12    3 months ago
Then to Your Fixation NO one else bothered to correct the Spock to Spoke but YOU

Your translation program's failings are not my responsibility.

Or did you intend to use "Spock" as a verb incorrectly, as you have repeatedly used "critic" as a verb incorrectly?

 
 
10.5.15    replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.9    3 months ago
No, you weren't.  You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens.

E.A  Am I the topic?

 I responded to a Question asked, you did what?

 Can you read the questioners Mind and Mine?

 Did you comment on the Seeded topic, or on an individual?

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  @10.5.13    3 months ago
all you learned is what I say about HIV?

I choose my sources of information carefully.  I've learned much, from those actually in a position to impart information.

 
 
10.5.17    replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.14    3 months ago
Your translation program's failings are not my responsibility. Or did you intend to use "Spock" as a verb incorrectly, as you have repeatedly used "critic" as a verb incorrectly?

E.A    END  with your and Your Fixation as you have well demonstrated here,, you do " personal attacks " on an individuals spelling and gramar, and not commenting on the Topic or seed!

IE: Critic' is what it is!

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  @10.5.17    3 months ago

Every time you used "critic" incorrectly, it was in a personal attack on another NTer.

 
 
Heartland American
10.5.19  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.4    3 months ago

It’s not.  It’s nothing more than pseudoscience psychobabble.  

 
 
Heartland American
10.5.20  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @10.5    3 months ago

God didn’t create harmful bacteria and viruses.  We did. By sinning we no longer had eternal life and learned the wages of sin and the knowledge of good and evil.  Death however it occurs is a natural result of our imperfect sinful nature and was not intended for us by God. The 2nd coming will result in the transformation of the saved to perfection and eternal life for the saved and destruction for everyone else.  After the judgement and all the lost join the saved in kneeling down before God the wicked will make their final charge at the New Jerusalem and be destroyed by Hell.   Then the earth will be recreated by God as it once was before sin and the flood and Eden restored here.  It is Satan that deceived humanity into blaming God for that which he caused by his rebellion.  

 
 
epistte
10.5.21  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.20    3 months ago
God didn’t create harmful bacteria and viruses.  We did. By sinning we no longer had eternal life and learned the wages of sin and the knowledge of good and evil.  Death however it occurs is a natural result of our imperfect sinful nature and was not intended for us by God. The 2nd coming will result in the transformation of the saved to perfection and eternal life for the saved and destruction for everyone else.  After the judgement and all the lost join the saved in kneeling down before God the wicked will make their final charge at the New Jerusalem and be destroyed by Hell.   Then the earth will be recreated by God as it once was before sin and the flood and Eden restored here.  It is Satan that deceived humanity into blaming God for that which he caused by his rebellion.  

You could not pass a high school biology course with this claim.

I assume that you do not benefit from vaccines, eat cheese, ingest antibiotics or any other products that are derived from virus' and bacteria.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.22  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.19    3 months ago

Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 

 
 
TᵢG
10.5.23  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.19    3 months ago
It’s [evolution] nothing more than pseudoscience psychobabble.  

Right, it is a worldwide conspiracy by evil scientists all pretending that evolution is the foundation of modern biology.   jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.24  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @10.5.21    3 months ago

I doubt he would pass any science course, especially given his dismal display of understanding it here.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.25  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.20    3 months ago

So do tell how sin somehow creates a natural, infectious organism which causes illness? This should be quite interesting. 

 
 
epistte
10.5.26  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.22    3 months ago
Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science.  It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 

It would not be difficult to convince me that some people are parodying the modern GOP base.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.27  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @10.5.26    3 months ago

I doubt they're paroding. 

 
 
epistte
10.5.28  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.27    3 months ago
I doubt they're paroding. 

That is not a comforting thought.

 
 
Heartland American
10.5.29  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @10.5.21    3 months ago

I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.  

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.30  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.29    3 months ago

I suppose that's what creationists do. It's not like they learn, or have any desire to learn actual science.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.5.31  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.29    3 months ago
I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.

No.  You could not.  You don't have the faintest idea of what science is.  

 
 
TᵢG
10.5.32  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.29    3 months ago

What is important is to study and ultimately learn.   Anyone who thinks evolution is pseudoscience is either woefully NOT understanding the subject matter or is blindly rejecting anything that compromises their religious beliefs.

Pseudoscience is the utter nonsense proposed by YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG).   These people offer the following explanation for dinosaurs as they stupidly try to interpret the Bible as a science book.   Note the contortions these people go through to explain dinosaurs on the ark:

When were dinosaurs created?

God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time.

Why did the dinosaurs not eat other animals on the ark?

Originally, before sin, all animals, including the dinosaurs, were vegetarian. Genesis 1:30 states, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.”   This means that even T. rex, before sin entered the world, ate only plants. Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. rex had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals. However, just because an animal has big, sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat. It just means it has big, sharp teeth!31    Today’s world has been changed dramatically because of sin and the Curse. The present food chain and animal behavior (which also changed after the Flood—Genesis 9:2–3) cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the Bible—the Bible explains why the world is the way it is.

How did dinosaurs fit on the ark?

Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark.     Recent research suggests that dinosaurs underwent rapid adolescent growth spurts.39 So it is realistic to assume that God would have sent young adults to the Ark, not fully grown creatures.

Now, observe carefully what these snake-oil-salesmen do to explain the many species of dinosaurs:

Some might argue that the 600 or more named species of dinosaurs could not have fit on the Ark. But Genesis 6:20 states that representative kinds of land animals boarded the Ark. The question then is, what is a “kind” (Hebrew: min)? Biblical creationists have pointed out that there can be many species descended from a kind. For example, there are many types of cats in the world, but all cat species probably came from only a few kinds of cats originally.40 The cat varieties today have developed by natural and artificial selection acting on the original variation in the information (genes) of the original cats. This has produced different combinations and subsets of information, and thus different types of cats.   Mutations (errors in copying of the genes during reproduction) can also contribute to the variation, but the changes caused by mutations are “downhill,” causing loss of the original information. Even speciation could occur through these processes. This speciation is not “evolution,” since it is based on the created information already present and is thus a limited, downhill process, not involving an upward increase in complexity. Thus, only a few feline pairs would have been needed on Noah’s Ark.

These despicable charlatans tacitly admit speciation because they cannot otherwise explain the species post Noah's ark.   Due to size limitations the ark could not have pairs (or more) of each species so they go with 'kind' (which equates to something like the biological classification known as 'family' or possibly 'order').   The 'kinds' are things like 'bears, rats, lizards, etc.'   So the leading Young Earth Creationist organization, Answers In Genesis, tacitly admits that the biological process of evolution is true.


So do you now realize that AiG is logically forced to recognize the science of evolution?   They deny the time period yet tacitly admit that speciation occurs.   But they still market the notion that evolution is pseudo-science because they must do so to keep the faithful in check.   They are an organization of contradictions devoted to one thing:  keeping people ignorant because that is what drives their revenue.   

The slimy deception of AiG is what is meant by the term 'pseudoscience'.

Do you ever sit down and seriously try to think any of this through?    That is, do you have anything to offer other than parroting slogans and platitudes of others?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.33  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @10.5.32    3 months ago

Bravo TiG. Well said. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.5.34  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.20    3 months ago
By sinning we no longer had eternal life and learned the wages of sin and the knowledge of good and evil.

And, again, Jesus weeps. 

 
 
Tessylo
10.5.35  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.11    3 months ago
'If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.'

Which is exactly what he's done at the end of the comments section.  What a surprise!  

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @10.5.35    3 months ago

He did the same thing in his comment #10, but it was deleted.

 
 
epistte
10.5.37  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.29    3 months ago
I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.  

1.) All science is secular because belief has no place in the scientific method. 

2.) Intelligent design is pseudoscience because it rejects the scientific method in favor of the religious belief in Genesis.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.5.38  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @10.5.29    2 months ago
I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.  

I very seriously doubt that.  You've never said anything that even passes the laugh test here.  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.5.39  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @10.5.1    2 months ago
Revelations!

And so we leave the suburbs and now enter downtown Crazyville. 

 
 
10.5.40    replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.5.39    2 months ago
And so we leave the suburbs and now enter downtown Crazyville. 

E.A  You mean like the " Big Bang " where " Nothing " was  caused to " Explode by Nothing "and Presto!!

Care to tell US all about " Protoplanet Formation "   and if that is far too complex for you how about Gravity, when and where was it?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.41  Gordy327  replied to  @10.5.40    2 months ago
You mean like the " Big Bang " where " Nothing " was  caused to " Explode by Nothing "and Presto!!

Who says the Big bang was caused by "nothing?"

Care to tell US all about " Protoplanet Formation "   and if that is far too complex for you how about Gravity, when and where was it?

Care to tell us how evolution is a "god," according to you? Still waiting for you to answer that question.

 
 
10.5.42    replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.41    2 months ago
Who says the Big bang was caused by "nothing?"

E.A  The Question was NOT to YOU!!

 But since you want to  " dance " Please tell us what went BANG, and what was the Cause of IT. and how Gravity played a part in IT, we are all eager to learn from ... well you know whom !!!

And then we talk " Protoplanet Formation " before we go to DNA, RNA and ATP!!

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.43  Gordy327  replied to  @10.5.42    2 months ago
The Question was NOT to YOU!!

This is a public discussion forum, so anyone can respond to anyone else.

 But since you want to  " dance " Please tell us what went BANG, and what was the Cause of IT. and how Gravity played a part in IT, we are all eager to learn from ... well you know whom !!!

Sure, just as soon as you answer my previous question that you danced around: how is evolution a "god?"

And then we talk " Protoplanet Formation " before we go to DNA, RNA and ATP!!

Go right ahead.

 
 
10.5.44    replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.43    2 months ago
This is a public discussion forum, so anyone can respond to anyone else.
 But since you want to  " dance " Please tell us what went BANG, and what was the Cause of IT. and how Gravity played a part in IT, we are all eager to learn from ... well you know whom !!!
Sure, just as soon as you answer my previous question that you danced around: how is evolution a "god?"

E.A   You wanted to " Dance " the " Music is Playing " but you " legs  are … "   Shall we?

 What went BANG!!!!!!

 
 
10.5.45    replied to  @10.5.44    2 months ago
What went BANG!!!!!!

E.A   For those interested in Real Science::

 Do A search what I have been saying for DECADES about::

 E=Mc ^2

 As E=Mc^2 Minus 1 %

The Minus 1 % Been Mass Defect

That being the Amount of energy needed to keep matter in a compressed state that we  see and use,

 Now the Major Question was and IS, what caused the " Compression " and what part does ENTROPY play it it!

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.5.46  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  @10.5.42    2 months ago
Please tell us what went BANG, and what was the Cause of IT. and how Gravity played a part in IT, we are all eager to learn from

The most likely explanation, the one that doesn't require the addition of an impossibly complex divine spirit being to have always existed, is that the dark energy and dark matter that we know are continually at odds with each other, one trying to rip the universe apart and the other trying to squeeze it down to quantum size, caused a tear in the very fabric of the universe allowing their antithesis, matter/energy, to explode into what we now think of as "our universe".

https://www.bbva.com/en/cosmic-war-dark-matter-dark-energy/

Now where did that dark matter and dark energy come from? We don't know, but they're just as likely to have always existed as it is for some impossibly complex God to have always existed and we have actual evidence of them whereas we have zero evidence of "God".

 
 
321steve
10.5.47  321steve  replied to  @10.5.44    2 months ago
What went BANG!!!  
       GOD 

E.A   For those interested in Real Science::

No thanks I'm good, till GOD tells me otherwise.  

And I doubt your it.

But do have a good day.

 
 
10.5.48    replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.5.46    2 months ago
The most likely explanation, the one that doesn't require the addition of an impossibly complex divine spirit being to have always existed, is that the dark energy and dark matter that we know are continually at odds with each other, one trying to rip the universe apart and the other trying to squeeze it down to quantum size, caused a tear in the very fabric of the universe allowing their antithesis, matter/energy, to explode into what we now think of as "our universe".

https://www.bbva.com/en/cosmic-war-dark-matter-dark-energy/

Now where did that dark matter and dark energy come from? We don't know, but they're just as likely to have always existed as it is for some impossibly complex God to have always existed and we have actual evidence of them whereas we have zero evidence of "God".

E.A    Thank YOU!

 So then " DO not Know " But have a " Theory " means what?

 As to " God " in NV you might have been present when Brian, David and Tig, had a debate with me about " Define God " and I did so by ::

 1) Can Energy Become Sentient?

 Answer, we exist we are sentient, hence the answer is Yes!

2) Can a Sentient Energy choose to Create?

Answer, We Humans are seeing ourself in some distant Future with the ability to Terraform and Genetical Modify organism to fit the NICHE of that Planetary body, and hence those those lifeforms, we will be " as a god "

3) Can then that Sentient Being allow for Freewill 

Answer, Yes as a Parent does to their child, but after a certain age the Child has to learn liability to its actions and choices

4) Is the above a Copout?

Answer, No it is what we are told as " Human Choice " to choose a different " leader " then the one that created them, according to a " Book Written by man "   If any one knows of any Books not written by Man/Woman, please inform NASA!! and SETI!!

 
 
TᵢG
10.5.49  TᵢG  replied to  @10.5.48    2 months ago
As to " God " in NV you might have been present when Brian, David and Tig, had a debate with me about " Define God " and I did so by ::

I doubt we ever had a debate with you.   At least not one where all parties were honestly putting forth arguments based on evidence and true logic.

Your Q&A is not something we would have objected to.   For the 3 questions:

1) Can Energy Become Sentient?   

Yes - we are evidence of that

2) Can a Sentient Energy choose to Create?

Yes - we are evidence of that.   Of course 'create' is vague.   Can a sentient entity create the known universe is an entirely unanswerable question.

3) Can then that Sentient Being allow for Freewill 

Yes.   If the reality created by the sentient entity is not deterministic then free will is possible.

Given you call this a debate we would not have been in agreement.   Thus the above could not possibly represent the debate.

Or at this point did you declare something non-sequitur such as:  therefore God exists?    That I can see you doing.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.5.50  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  @10.5.48    2 months ago
So then " DO not Know " But have a " Theory " means what?

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. "

Much like the theory of gravity, the big bang theory is far more than just a baseless hypothesis. It is the best explanation based on the observable evidence we have. We continue to refine our tools that allow us to get a deeper picture of our universe, and so far all the evidence supports that cosmic event. It doesn't even attempt to explain the "why" of it, which is what most religious persons seem hung up on, but then it doesn't need a why.

Religious theory seeks to answer the "why", but so far can only give unfounded personal hypothesis for "why" existence exists. Science isn't really into answering the philosophical reasons behind the universe, it merely focuses on the how, and all the evidence to date says the "how" was the big bang. And just like with the theory of gravity, we can calculate it reliably without ever needing to know the "why" behind it.

If some people in ancient history claimed that when it rained it was God crying, would the "why" really matter more than the how? All their crops cared about was that it was falling, and whether they prayed to this God or that did nothing to change the rainfall no matter how hard they danced, proving the "why" not only didn't matter, but actually ended up costing some valuable resources and energy spent on pointlessly appeasing a figment of their imagination.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.51  Gordy327  replied to  @10.5.44    2 months ago
What went BANG

I asked you first. A long time ago too.

 
 
10.5.52    replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.51    2 months ago
What went BANG
I asked you first.

E.A wanted to dance with Two Left feet and tone deaf.   go play elsewhere,, you no fun !!!

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.53  Gordy327  replied to  @10.5.52    2 months ago
wanted to dance with Two Left feet and tone deaf.   go play elsewhere,, you no fun !!!

Well look at that: another deflection with another nonsensical statement on your part. Not surprising either.

 
 
11      3 months ago

Evolution OR Creation

#10 Eagle Averro

One does have to wonder tho::

 Now that China can watch and see how the US of A has dealt or failed to, for over 50 Years, how a simple Epidemic has become a Pandemic, how they will deal with it!

 
 
Krishna
11.1  Krishna  replied to  @11    2 months ago
Now that China can watch and see how the US of A has dealt or failed to, for over 50 Years, how a simple Epidemic has become a Pandemic, how they will deal with it!

Well, whatever China is plotting to do,  I imagine that they are going to "wait until after the midterms"!

 
 
12      3 months ago

There Is a Rogue Group of Stars Behaving Very Suspiciously in the Milky Way's Disk

By Brandon Specktor, Live Science Senior Write

Did an ancient encounter with a nearby galaxy throw millions of Milky Way stars out of alignment? Astronomers investigate in a new study.

Credit: ESA

E.A  " Very Suspiciously " As if we know it all, but wait some on NT do KNOW it all!! 

 Say Any one seen the Photo I posted a few years back to Michael Astronomy FM, If you did you might recall that " We have NEVER Been in this LOCATION Before, so what DO we know again?

 
 
12.1    replied to  @12    3 months ago
what DO we know again?

E.A  A Direct Quote so READ the article!!! 

According to the researchers, one possible explanation is that a smaller, satellite galaxy swooped past the Milky Way sometime during that period, and the visitor's considerable gravity accidentally tugged the affected stars out of step "

 "Possible explanation" does that mean they have many points of Faith that they wish that at least ONE would be True?

 
 
12.1.1    replied to  @12.1    3 months ago
points of Faith

E.A  Is Faith and Believe  closely related?

Scientists now believe that our galaxy is slowly absorbing the stars of Sagittarius and, within the next 100 million years or so, will rip it to shreds. Touché! "

E.A  Now is not yesterday and not likely to be tomorrow 

 Bold and Colour added by E.A

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
12.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @12.1.1    3 months ago
 Bold and Colour added by E.A

Well, also those circular bands on the left.  Or maybe someone else added those.  You realize the entire picture is an artist's creation, right?  There's no actual picture from that perspective of the Milky Way. 

 
 
Krishna
12.2  Krishna  replied to  @12    2 months ago
There Is a Rogue Group of Stars Behaving Very Suspiciously . . .

I bet Hillary is behind this!!!

 
 
Steve Ott
13  Steve Ott    3 months ago

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

So what is the cause of god?

 
 
13.1    replied to  Steve Ott @13    3 months ago
Everything that begins to exist has a cause So what is the cause of god?

E.A See My Blog Bigbang Vs Creation it is all outlined that in Mathematics, and it also has a link to a photo where Hawkins also had an issue with that!

https://thenewstalkers.com/eagle-averro/blog/1350/big-bang-vs-creation

 
 
Steve Ott
13.1.1  Steve Ott  replied to  @13.1    3 months ago

Either the link is broken, or the blog no longer exists.

 
 
13.1.2    replied to  Steve Ott @13.1.1    3 months ago
Either the link is broken, or the blog no longer exists.

E.A If it " Brocken " see management, they might " Fix " It!

It Exists, as I exist :-)

 
 
Steve Ott
13.1.3  Steve Ott  replied to  @13.1.2    3 months ago

That may be, but it only takes me to this:

https://thenewstalkers.com/eagle-averro/blog/category/1

 
 
13.1.4    replied to  Steve Ott @13.1.3    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
13.1.5    replied to  Steve Ott @13.1.3    3 months ago
That may be, but it only takes me to this:

E.A This might just give a glimpse of why it is " Locked "

 
 
Skrekk
13.2  Skrekk  replied to  Steve Ott @13    3 months ago
So what is the cause of god?

No doubt it's just a human brain fart.

 
 
Steve Ott
13.2.1  Steve Ott  replied to  Skrekk @13.2    3 months ago

I'm kinda thinking it's turtles all the way down.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
13.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Steve Ott @13    3 months ago
So what is the cause of god?

Physics.

 
 
TᵢG
13.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @13.3    3 months ago

Specifically the physics underlying the formation of the human brain - an organ capable of inventing answers to unanswered questions.

 
 
Krishna
13.4  Krishna  replied to  Steve Ott @13    2 months ago
Everything that begins to exist has a cause So what is the cause of god?

Why do people keep assuming that at some point God started to exist? 

Don't people realize that its possible that God has always existed???!?!??
We're talking about another dimension of consciousness here-- a dimension where time and space are merely abstract concepts-- an illusion!
Maya, (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy, notably in the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.

 
 
14      3 months ago

"It's a bit like looking under the lamp post for our lost keys at night, rather than venturing out into the dark where it might be a bit harder to find new information."
Working on a relatively unknown gene means taking the time to build the tools required to study that gene, which is tough in an industry where the currency is published research.
"By that time, a few years might have passed and if you haven't been very productive in terms of publishing papers and winning grants, that tends to put a very big chilling effect on your career," Dr Saunders said.
While the imbalance between the pursuit of truly novel medical breakthroughs and the logistical realities of research is well known within science, Dr Saunders acknowledged it could come as a shock to the rest of us who trust science to solve the big problems.
"There's a big disconnect between how people think science works and how it actually works in practice," he said.

 
 
14.1    replied to  @14    3 months ago
big disconnect between how people think science works and how it actually works in practice," he said.
Dr Darren Saunders says fellow researchers, not just funding bodies, need to shift their thinking.
(ABC News: David Lewis)

Here in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recently reformed its grant program to "encourage greater creativity" and avoid an environment that "favour[s] 'safe' research to the detriment of innovation".

Dr Saunders said the changes were a good start, but a shift needs to happen at all levels.

"It's up to all of us, both the people writing the grant funding and asking the questions in science, and those of us who review the funding applications, to try and be a little bit more risky, less risk-averse, in our approach to what we fund," he said.

"Maybe we need to be a little bit more accommodating of scientists who take risks that don't necessarily always have those risks pay off.

"Because that's kind of the nature of science, right? You can't always predict where it's going to go."

 
 
15      3 months ago

Cern scientist: 'Physics built by men - not by invitation'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

Getty Images
Image caption
Cern, based in Switzerland, is one of the world's largest centres for scientific research

A senior scientist has given what has been described as a "highly offensive" presentation about the role of women in physics, the BBC has learned.
At a workshop organised by Cern, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation".
He said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit.
He was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics.
Prof Strumia has since defended his comments, saying he was only presenting the facts.
Cern, the European nuclear research centre, described Prof Strumia's presentation as "highly offensive".
The centre, which discovered the Higgs Boson in 2012, has removed slides used in the talk from its website "in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults".
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, presented the results of a study of published research papers from an online library.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results "proved" that "physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside".

 
 
15.1    replied to  @15    3 months ago
However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside

Prof Strumia pointed to behavioural research which he suggested may account for the disparity.
One study, he told his audience, indicated that "men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people" and another, he claimed, suggested that there was a "difference even in children before any social influence".

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
15.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @15    2 months ago

Extry, extry....read all about it!! Italian man found to be a sexist pig!!!!

 
 
TᵢG
16  TᵢG    3 months ago

Response to xxJefferson @1.3.1  'rebuttal by proxy' which offers only a link to an 'argument'.    This 'argument' claims to prove God exists.    An amazing level of hubris by the author to claim to prove the existence of God when that has escaped all of humanity for all of recorded history.

PROOF 1 — Creation Demands a Creator

By definition.  If something is created, a creator must be involved.   

Flaw in Logic:   Must prove the universe was created.

PROOF 2 — Life Demands a Life-Giver

Flaw in Logic:  Argument needs to prove that life cannot form by undirected processes.    Lacking this, proof 2 is simply an assertion, not a proof.

PROOF 3 — Laws Demand a Law-Giver

Flaw in Logic:  Laws are simply patterns human beings observe in nature.   Argument would have to prove that patterns do not emerge naturally.  Lacking this, proof 3 is simply an assertion, not a proof.

PROOF 4 — Design Demands a Designer

By definition.  If something is designed, a designer must be involved.   

Flaw in Logic:   Must prove the universe was designed.   ( This is simply a restatement of PROOF 1 )

PROOF 5 — Fulfilled Prophetic Promises

Flaw in Logic:  Elevating coincidence and predictable patterns to 'prophecy' level.

Sidon is promised to have a bloody history but to continue to exist (Ezekiel 28:22–23). By contrast, Ezekiel very specifically prophesied that many nations would come against Tyre like waves of the sea (26:3). 

Predicting that select nations of this era would engage in bloody battles is simply extrapolation of human nature.   I can predict that Egypt's future is one of violence (and like the Bible I do not have to specify when this will occur or get into any specific details).

Another series of remarkable prophecies concerns specific promises about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And how surprising it is that the NT (written after the OT) correlates with this.   This is no more surprising than the work of an author correlating with the author's prior work.

PROOF 6 — Answered Prayer

This has been studied.   There is no apparent causal relationship between prayer and divine intervention.  

Flaw in Logic:  False fact; unsubstantiated claim.

PROOF 7 — A Way of Life That Works

Following the Bible could offer good life lessons (e.g. love thy neighbor) and truly horrible life lessons (e.g. slavery, rape, killing of homosexuals, etc.).    

Flaw in Logic:  Cherrypicking - ignoring all the bad and only acknowledging the good

 
 
Gordy327
16.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @16    3 months ago

Slam dunk as usual TiG. Too bad you probably will not get a reply or if you do, it will be something along the lines of "nuh uh," or other obtuse rationalizations. Such is the demonstrable lack of intellectual integrity of some theists.

 
 
TᵢG
16.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1    3 months ago

In this case I am rebutting a rebuttal by proxy.   Instead of formulating his own response the seeder simply linked to another article to have someone else argue on his behalf.   

I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves.   That is the only way to learn - nobody gets smarter by merely parroting the words of others.   And, of course, this ultimately means making one's own arguments.   If one cannot even formulate a response, that suggests one needs to do more thinking on the subject matter.

 
 
Gordy327
16.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.1    3 months ago

Your attempt to get people to think for themselves or on an issue is both an admirable and worthy endeavor. Unfortunately, there are some  (especially certain individuals here on NT) who prefer to not think or learn anything new, especially if it conflicts with their beliefs. 

But I applaud and salute your efforts. I usually learn something new from your replies and/or citations. So I offer a sincere thank you for that.jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
TᵢG
16.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.2    3 months ago

Thanks.   There is no downside that I have seen to critical thinking.

 
 
Gordy327
16.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.3    3 months ago

The only "downside" I can see with critical thinking is the shattering of someone's fragile emotional state if they adopted critical thinking over mere belief and the emotional comfort they derive from it. But I would consider that the beginning of intellectual enlightenment and strong mindedness, which is hardly a "downside."

 
 
TᵢG
16.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.4    3 months ago

truth-will-set-you-free-orlando-espinosa

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
16.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  TᵢG @16    2 months ago
An amazing level of hubris by the author

That is the most forgiving and gentle way of putting it.  

 
 
TᵢG
16.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @16.2    2 months ago

I too have more aggressive words in mind.   jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
17      3 months ago

 
 
17.1    replied to  @17    3 months ago

[deleted]

Culper and Bold Added by E.A

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @17.1    3 months ago

Culper? 

 
 
17.1.2    replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @17.1.1    3 months ago
Culper? 

E.A  Yes it seems that the Editor on NT is working Just Fine :-) 

 That is Colour!

 
 
Tessylo
17.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  @17.1    3 months ago

So you have a problem with people with HIV and/or AIDS getting their life sustaining/prolonging medications?  

 
 
17.1.4    replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @17.1.1    3 months ago
Culper? 

E.A  And nice to see as Always, that some Choose the MOST important part of a Post :-)

 So the Cost in $$$?

Cost in Human life and well being?

In Community and Family?

 What is Religion ( Re Ligion ) Again?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  @17.1.2    3 months ago

The NT editor does not auto-correct words.  'Colour' to 'culper' is user error and/or your device.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @17.1.4    2 months ago
that some Choose the MOST important part of a Post

Well, context is everything, is it not?  It seemed like it should have been color but I had a hard time thinking that much difference in the two words was just a typo. In fact, for a brief moment I thought it might have been a reference to the spy ring used by the Americans during the Revolutionary War (for a great dramatization of that story, see the fine AMC series "Turn").  Then I remembered your impenetrable phrase making, e.g. "devout factionalist," and it seemed all bets were off for divining what you could possibly have meant.  Thus, the question.  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @17    3 months ago
Currently, 25 countries have recognised same-sex marriage. Homosexuality remains illegal in 71 countries. The new Trump administration policy update was circulated in a United Nations (UN) memo.

And those countries would be religious states and those run by regressive dictatorships (ah, but I repeat myself).  "Congratulations" on our joining the bottom of the barrel. 

 
 
Skrekk
17.3  Skrekk  replied to  @17    3 months ago
The memo states: "As of 1 October 2018, same-sex domestic partners accompanying or seeking to join newly arrived United Nations officials must provide proof of marriage to be eligible for a G-4 visa or to seek a change into such status."

I was going to seed this separately and it's definitely off-topic here.     However it's quite a cruel policy change since it will subject many of these UN staffers and their partners to criminal penalties (even the death penalty) in their home countries.

It's a very deliberate attempt by the Trump regime to harm LGBT folks in a truly horrible way.

 
 
17.3.1    replied to  Skrekk @17.3    3 months ago
It's a very deliberate attempt by the Trump regime to harm LGBT folks in a truly horrible way.

E.A the question then to be on topic,

has this " New Religion  " gone too far and demanded too much, and now there is a reaction because of that?

Note the Three Question I asked about the " Costs " ( 17.1.4  Eagle Averro   ) of this New Religion, the word " New " is a misnomer I know  but its Pollical push and Pull and it demands are indeed " new " is a form of speaking

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @17.3.1    2 months ago
" New Religion  "

Here's another example of inventive phrase-making with no frame of reference whatsoever.  And your attempt (I think) to enlarge upon ends up making even more obscure.  You need to take a course in polemics, not to mention basic English composition,  if you ever hope to be understood.  

 
 
Phoenyx13
17.3.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  @17.3.1    2 months ago
has this " New Religion  " gone too far and demanded too much, and now there is a reaction because of that?

what is the "New Religion" ? are you referring to a sexual orientation as a "religion" now ?

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @17.3.3    2 months ago

He seems to think evolution is a god/religion. So I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the same about sexual orientation. But if you ask nicely and say "pretty please," maybe he'll provide an answer. Otherwise, you'll probably just get a deflection.

 
 
Heartland American
17.3.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.4    2 months ago

The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science is their idol of “reason” they worship substituting their limited human understanding of science and knowledge for God and then like blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science and our belief in spiritual matters such as social conservative values and theology like angels as pseudoscience when it is they who are narrow minded intellectually lazy bigots toward all who don’t see the world and the universe as they do.  Their views really are jrSmiley_23_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif   Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.  jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
TᵢG
17.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago

Not a single intellectual rebuttal in the comment.   Nothing but complaints, platitudes and slogans.

Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.

Who could possibly be persuaded by you making such a claim when you clearly cannot offer even the most basic intellectual response to direct rebuttals of the nonsense you have seeded?

I have two detailed rebuttals:  TiG @8 and TiG @16

Do something more than simply claim 'idiocy'.   Make a counter-argument based on fact and logic.   Clearly you will not do so.   Hopefully everyone reading the crap you have offered will realize that it is indeed crap and that you do not have the first clue on how to defend that which you propose.    To wit, which of us have proposed the idiocy?

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.7  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago

Do you actually have any intelligent, rational, or relevant reply to add? Because so far, all you've done this entire discussion is dodge, deflect, and spew baseless assertions and irrational nonsense like that. You certainly haven't offered any logical replies or  rebuttals to challenges and points presented, especially when they prove you wrong. Frankly, I would be embarrassed if I were you.

 
 
Skrekk
17.3.8  Skrekk  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago
Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.

Can you name any relevant Nobel prizes which Cretinists have won due to the awesome analytical powers of their superstitions about a sky fairy?

 
 
epistte
17.3.9  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @17.3.8    2 months ago

I'd like to know even one scientific discovery that was conclusively overturned by religion?  What problem has ever been solved by prayer and religious belief?

 
 
epistte
17.3.10  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science is their idol of “reason” they worship substituting their limited human understanding of science and knowledge for God and then like blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science and our belief in spiritual matters such as social conservative values and theology like angels as pseudoscience when it is they who are narrow minded intellectually lazy bigots toward all who don’t see the world and the universe as they do.  Their views really are    Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.  

Can someone please give Palin-for-XX his period key back. Thanks. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.11  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.3.9    2 months ago

Religion has perhaps most notably tried to overturn evolution. Too bad for it that is has consistently and spectacularly failed since Darwin first introduced the theory. Many theists are just sore losers about it and cannot accept that science trumps their silly religious beliefs.

The only thing prayer has ever done is make the one praying feel good about doing nothing. Prayer or religious belief certainly hasn't solved any problems or has had any tangible effect. Neither have theists ever been able to prove otherwise. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.12  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @17.3.8    2 months ago

Don't you know creationists have never won a noble prize based on their god because evil heathen secular progressives conspire to keep them down? jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.13  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @17.3.6    2 months ago

TiG, he hasn't had a single intellectual rebuttal in the entire discussion, even when he's had ample time to formulate one. All he's done is ignore challenges and rebuttals while spewing the same irrational, nonsensical tripe. 

 
 
cjcold
17.3.14  cjcold  replied to  epistte @17.3.10    2 months ago

Pretty sure that punctuation is not required for insane rants.

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.3.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  cjcold @17.3.14    2 months ago

Punctuation is actually undesirable in rants.  It slows down the flow of angry word salad.

 
 
Phoenyx13
17.3.16  Phoenyx13  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science is their idol of “reason” they worship substituting their limited human understanding of science and knowledge for God

so they go on facts, verifiable evidence, logic and critical thinking - this is a bad thing in your opinion ?

and then like blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science and our belief in spiritual matters such as social conservative values and theology like angels as pseudoscience

and they reject mythology, emotional arguments and suspension of critical thinking due to "belief" as a basis or explanation for scientific matters - this is a bad thing in your opinion ?

when it is they who are narrow minded intellectually lazy bigots toward all who don’t see the world and the universe as they do.

this sounds like the religious who constantly condemn others to be eternally tortured in a lake of fire (and many who eagerly advocate it and eagerly await their "enemies" to be judged and tortured for all time) - just because they don't share the same beliefs.

Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy

please explain in detail what you find to be "idiotic" about Evolution and why you disagree with it. thanks :)

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.3.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago
blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science

So we're "blind" because we choose to believe our eyes? We're "hateful bigots" because we don't want unfounded, unproven conjecture based on archaic shepherds musings to be taken as fact?

When a scientist presents years of experiments, physical evidence and observations to support a hypothesis, they are not "denigrating" the person who believes it happens by magic. They are simply accepting that the only verifiable truths are those that can be thoroughly challenged and rigorously vetted.

Just because I don't believe in Santa doesn't mean I'm trying to run around informing every child of this fact in order to ruin a potentially special spiritual family experience. I would never recommend lying to your children about Santa even though its relatively harmless, but I'm not trying to stop any Christians from having whatever special holiday they want to imagine and enjoy.

What I won't do is entertain any person trying to discuss the supposed science behind how Santa makes it to every child's home in one night or how he magically fits down chimneys. Debating such nonsense is a waste of time. I feel the same about debating the supposed "young earth" theory because it's as ridiculous as Santa visiting every child in one night with his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.

And while no school in America bans Christmas art projects or other Christmas events, the science class doesn't start teaching any Christmas pseudoscience about elf biology or flying reindeer lift and velocity. The same can be done in regards to YEC's. They can believe whatever they want at home, but don't expect any respectable science teacher to present their ridiculous theories as even possible let alone plausible.

 
 
Heartland American
17.3.18  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.7    2 months ago

The sources I would choose to use are not ok to use here so silence will have to substitute due to censorship.  

 
 
TᵢG
17.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.18    2 months ago

Another cop out.  Nothing stops you* from making your own rebuttal.   Indeed, making your own case is vastly superior to running out and finding links to serve as your proxy.


* = Assuming you understand the subject matter of your seed.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.20  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.18    2 months ago

That's just an excuse and a poor one too. If you're so sure about your "sources," then there should be no issue with citing them. All you're doing is dodging again, which comes as no surprise either.

 
 
Heartland American
17.3.21  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.20    2 months ago

jrSmiley_52_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifAnd now for the truth:  Written like a newspaper article, Why Evolution is a Fraud: A Secular and Common-Sense Deconstruction exposes the shocking racism and blatant distortions of this pseudo-scientific, atheistic philosophy. Regardless of your background in science (or lack thereof), Why Evolution is a Fraud is easy to understand, decisive and engrossing. What makes Why Evolution is a Fraud unique is that it breaks the tired old stalemate of âÂÂreligion versus scienceâ by using scientific facts and common sense to annihilate evolution. Definitive and heavily researched Why Evolution is a Fraud shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically and genetically impossible. The book also shows how such a weak, wannabe-science has survived in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Readers who liked Treason by Ann Coulter, Blink & The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell will enjoy Why Evolution is a Fraud. https://books.google.com/books/about/Why_Evolution_Is_a_Fraud.html?id=I0cGGQAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description

 
 
epistte
17.3.22  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.18    2 months ago
The sources I would choose to use are not ok to use here so silence will have to substitute due to censorship.

The Stream isn't proof of anything. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.23  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.21    2 months ago

In what way is that book a peer reviewed scientific work or its author a credible scientist? It doesn't discredit evolution in the slightest. It's just another transparent  attempt at pretzel logic to somehow show evolution as a fallacy, much like you try (and fail) to do. Of course, actual educated and rational people can see right through that (and your) nonsense. If you want to discredit evolution,  all you need is some empirical evidence which does just that. So far, neither you nor anyone else had ever been able to do so since evolution was first introduced. But by all means, come up with actual evidence and present it to the scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences) for review. If anyone ever did manage to discredit evolution, they just might win a nobel prize. So if that's the best you can offer, then it's no wonder your arguments have been blown out if the water, you demonstrating profound ignorance of science, and have absolutely zero credibility. But thanks for the laughs.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.3.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.23    2 months ago
But by all means, come up with actual evidence and present it to the scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences) for review.

That would be like presenting the book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone" as proof of wizards.

"Non-magic people (more commonly known as muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognising it." - History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot

If it's written in a book, it must be true, right?... /s

"Regardless of your background in science (or lack thereof), "Why Evolution is a Fraud" is easy to understand, decisive and engrossing"

I think Tom Sutcliff (who is not a scientists of any kind) is relying on the reader to lack any background in science. And I love how a book about theories is described as being "decisive". Yeah, it's decisive because the author already had his mind made up as to the conclusions he would draw before ever looking at a single piece of evidence.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.25  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.3.24    2 months ago
That would be like presenting the book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone" as proof of wizards.

That is often the example I use when someone tries to use the bible as "proof" of god.

If it's written in a book, it must be true, right?... /s

Apparently, that's what some theists really think. Unless it's a science book of course.

Yeah, it's decisive because the author already had his mind made up as to the conclusions he would draw before ever looking at a single piece of evidence.

That about sums it up. It parrots (and like-minded individuals parrot back) anti-evolution animus and scientific ignorance without providing evidence of their assertion or understanding of why their position is erroneous.

 
 
epistte
17.3.26  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.25    2 months ago
That is often the example I use when someone tries to use the bible as "proof" of god.

The idea that a book written by man cannot possibly be proof of god is one of the biggest problems that religious conservatives fail to understand. The Bible is their idea of what god is supposed to be and what they want god to be, but logically it cannot be proof of god if it was written by men.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.27  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.3.26    2 months ago
The Bible is their idea of what god is supposed to be and what they want god to be, but logically it cannot be proof of god if it was written by men.

You forget, biblical authors were "inspired" by god. So naturally, that just as good as god writing the bible himself. Lol

 
 
epistte
17.3.28  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.27    2 months ago

I like to ask how their god inspired the bible.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.29  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.3.28    2 months ago

Because...god. Right? jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science.....blah.....blahhhhhh.......blllllaaaaahhhhhhhh

Here, again, is this believer thinking that trying to  drag atheists and rational thinkers in general down to his level seems like an argument winning strategy.  It continues to crack me up.  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.31  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @17.3.22    2 months ago
The Stream isn't proof of anything. 

But it does suggest micturition which proves that they're terrible at "creative thinking" (pun intended).   

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.21    2 months ago

This kind of comment actually makes me almost feel sorry for you, xxj.  But then I remember what you stand for and......*pooof*...... that sentiment disappears. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.33  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @17.3.5    2 months ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism

You're like a human cliché manufacturing plant. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
18  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 months ago

It took me a while to do the research, which is always necessary whenever this author puts up another article, but I finally did track down what is probably the original source for this alleged comment by Russell.  Of course, it turns out that it didn't come from Russell.  In an article by Leo Rosten in the Feb. 23, 1974 issue of Saturday Review/World it was actually Rosten who's the source for that quote, not Russell.  Indeed, Russell died four years before this article appeared so Rosten was what could be charitably called "poetic license" to describe Russell's rationalism.  From then on it has always been falsely attributed to Russell so it's not like our author is alone in making the error but it does fall into the continuum of his pattern to publish false quotes and events in order to prop up his beliefs.  

And then I need to address this statement from his OP:

From my perspective, so much evidence for God exists, that it seems unreasonable to doubt his existence.

Of course, when that perspective is the unconditional and unquestioned belief  it's inevitable that reason would never enter into the matter. 

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @18    2 months ago
unconditional and unquestioned belief  

This exists on both sides of the argument.  I look at it from this stand point, you either believe in magic or you believe in a higher power regardless of what name you assign to it. When I say you believe in magic you want people believe something(the universe) was created from nothing.  If you believe in a higher power the question is, where did the higher power come from.  There is no rational answer except "unconditional and unquestioned belief ". 

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    2 months ago
When I say you believe in magic you want people believe something(the universe) was created from nothing. 

Who says the universe came from nothing?   Existence itself is something - we know this by simple observation; existence itself is also necessarily eternal.  There is a quintessential substance of existence (might be quantum particles, might be much lower).   

The universe did not come from literally nothing - that is a semantic contradiction.   Everything (including our known universe) is an emergent property of existence.   The universe came from something - it came from existence itself. 

The question is if there was a sentient agent involved.   

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    2 months ago
you either believe in magic or you believe in a higher power regardless of what name you assign to it.

Those are essentially two of the same thing.

When I say you believe in magic you want people believe something(the universe) was created from nothing. 

The universe wasn't created from nothing. 

 There is no rational answer except "unconditional and unquestioned belief ". 

Belief is not a rational answer either. It's simply an emotionally comforting cop-out way to fill in a gap in knowledge.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    2 months ago
There is no rational answer except "unconditional and unquestioned belief ". 

How is that rational?

Mere faith (unconditional and unquestioned belief) is probably the worst method for finding truth.   It foregoes all critical analysis and simply accepts as true what other human beings claim.

Santa Claus is believed to be true by many based on faith.

Faith is an unreliable method for approaching truth.   Much better to objectively follow the evidence to where it leads.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.4  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.1    2 months ago
(might be quantum particles, might be much lower)

Where would quantum particles come from?  You seem to think Existence has some type of form. When I say nothing, it is truly nothing there is no quantum particles or anything lower.       

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.5  gooseisgone  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.2    2 months ago
The universe wasn't created from nothing

Tell me how it was created?

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.6  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.3    2 months ago
Santa Claus is believed to be true by many based on faith.

Please tell what faith believe in Santa Claus.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.4    2 months ago
Where would quantum particles come from? 

Nobody knows physics at that level.   Quantum particles might be the quintessential substance of existence.   I strongly suspect, however, that there is quite a bit below the level of quantum particle.

You seem to think Existence has some type of form. 

I know existence takes forms.   That is the most evidenced reality we have.   I also know that the forms of existence are (ultimately) composed of the quintessential substance of existence.   I do not, however, know anything about the nature of the quintessential substance of existence other than its presence.   Nobody does.  

When I say nothing, it is truly nothing there is no quantum particles or anything lower.       

Yup, that is what I mean by nothing too.   Nothing is a concept that means the opposite of something.   It is therefore impossible for something to come from nothing.   Existence does not emerge from nothing.   

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.6    2 months ago
Please tell what faith believe in Santa Claus.

There are different usages of the word 'faith'.  You are using the usage which equates 'faith' with 'religion'.   I was using 'faith' as 'belief without sufficient evidence'.

'Faith' per Oxford:

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.   ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.   ‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’
  1. 2.1 count noun A particular religion.      ‘the Christian faith’
  2. 2.2 count noun A strongly held belief.    ‘men with strong political faiths’

An example strongly held belief is Santa Claus.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.5    2 months ago
Tell me how it was created?

Who says the universe was created?   The universe might have formed undirected.   It may simply be an emergent form of existence.

But, regardless of origin, the universe clearly did not simply pop into existence from nothing.   That is a semantic contradiction.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
18.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.9    2 months ago
The universe might have formed undirected.

“The gravity of dark matter tries to keep everything together, but its evil sister, dark energy, undoes its work and ensures that our universe expands more rapidly every day”.

https://www.bbva.com/en/cosmic-war-dark-matter-dark-energy/

Personally, I believe dark matter and dark energy have always existed, and we are merely a byproduct of a great cosmic war being waged between the two. I believe the big bang was the result of these two forces coming to a head, with unimaginable pressure building up at a focal point as small as a quantum particle which eventually burst like a galactic pimple being popped through which dark matter and dark energy were turned into the matter/energy we know and call our universe. And it's entirely possible that there are any number of universes outside of our own where the same pressure burst into larger or smaller explosions of matter/energy.

When cosmologists calculate the mass of dark matter and dark energy our entire universes mass is just a tiny flea in comparison. We are a tiny bubble of matter in a sea of dark matter.

Now if you want to try and invent a consciousness behind such dark matter or dark energy, that's your choice. Since at this point we can't prove any sort of consciousness outside this singular sparkling blue spaceship we find ourselves on, you can invent whatever you want. Just don't bother going around trying to convince others of your imagined conscious cosmic being, it's not based on any facts, science or observable phenomena and everyone else's imagination is just as valid, be it the FSM, Vishnu, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin or the Genie from Aladdin.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @18.1.10    2 months ago
Now if you want to try and invent a consciousness behind such dark matter or dark energy, that's your choice.

One is free to hypothesize a sentient entity, but it would indeed not be based on evidence.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.12  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.7    2 months ago
I do not, however, know anything about the nature of the quintessential substance of existence other than its presence.   Nobody does.  

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!  At that point a creator or higher power is just as plausible.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
18.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.12    2 months ago
At that point a creator or higher power is just as plausible.

If magical flying spaghetti monster is just as plausible as an eternal universe or random chance, why do some feel it necessary to name, describe, assign traits and desires and then attempt to worship something that has neither been proved nor disproved? I think it's because they can't stand simply admitting we don't know. They have to assign more meaning to themselves, the universe and invent explanations for our existence as well as claim they know what the "divine plan" is and they always happen to be some integral part of it.

For my part, I have no problem accepting that we might never know the true origins of the universe, but then again, we might. And so far, when you compare mans preconceived ideas about what things are and how they work versus what we then discover later as our technology advances and we have better tools with which to examine the universe, humans were almost never right. From the shape of the earth, place in the solar system, place in the universe, cause of natural disasters, cause of diseases, origins of natural monuments and formations, all of our ancient ideas of how they came to be proved false. So odds that they'll finally get one invented myth about how the universe works right seem pretty slim, like the hair on a quantum particle slim.

The best bet is on everyone getting it wrong, that bet would have won in almost every instance.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.12    2 months ago
At that point a creator or higher power is just as plausible.

How do you figure that?    Here are the two hypotheses shown in very clear terms:

800

Hypothesis one:   

  1. The universe emerges from existence; the universe is a form of existence.

Hypothesis two:   

  1. 'God' emerges from existence - a form of existence.   
  2. 'God' creates the universe.

Introducing 'God' is an extra step.   But even more important, the second hypothesis requires the emergence of a sentient entity ('God') that is certainly more complex (and thus less likely) than the universe it would create.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @18.1.13    2 months ago
... why do some feel it necessary to name, describe, assign traits and desires and then attempt to worship something that has neither been proved nor disproved?

Yes as soon as someone claims attributes of 'God' they have moved into pure speculation - digging a hole.   The more attributes the deeper the hole.   The heavily attributed God of the Bible is a demonstrable contradiction.   It is self-refuting.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
18.1.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.14    2 months ago
Introducing 'God' is an extra step.

Occam's razor: When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.5    2 months ago

Current evidence supports the Big Bang.

 
 
321steve
18.1.18  321steve  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.17    2 months ago
Current evidence supports the Big Bang.

To me that doesn't negate GOD, perhaps that was how GOD started. Perhaps it is GOD. 

GOD to me is Whatever arranged the atoms to be the universe. Period

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  321steve @18.1.18    2 months ago
To me that doesn't negate GOD, perhaps that was how GOD started. Perhaps it is GOD. 

The Big Bang could  be the act of a sentient entity.   It is possible.    

There is no evidence supporting this hypothesis, but it is possible.

GOD to me is Whatever arranged the atoms to be the universe. Period

Too bad you are part of a tiny minority.

 
 
321steve
18.1.20  321steve  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.19    2 months ago
Too bad you are part of a tiny minority.

LOL... I kinda agree.

I didn't come to my end conclusion easily though. 

 
 
321steve
18.1.21  321steve  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @18.1.16    2 months ago
Introducing 'God' is an extra step.

True, But Trying to explain anything after the bang is as well. 

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  321steve @18.1.18    2 months ago

There's no reason to assume its god (depending on how one defines god). Neither is there any reason to assume there's a god or that god started anything without evidence. If you're going to claim plausibility regarding god, then just replace the word "god" with fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes and see if it still sounds plausible.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.22    2 months ago
depending on how one defines god

I think that is the key with Steve's view.   He seems to have a pantheistic view.  IMO.

 
 
321steve
18.1.24  321steve  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.22    2 months ago

If you're going to claim plausibility regarding god, then just replace the word "god" with fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes and see if it still sounds plausible.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity:

What about instead of fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes (I’ll add Sky fairies, it’s so cute) we called that “POWER” an entity, a sprit, or a force of nature  and see if it does sound plausible.

To me it does

“WHATEVER  arranged the atoms to be ALL they are IS what I call GOD”

Period

I need no more. I know no more (even though  I’ve read the old testament , the new testament, the Book of Moron, and parts of the Koran.) Then I decided to ask myself WTF I really believed…. You see WTF I came up with.

“WHATEVER  arranged the atoms to be ALL they are IS what I call GOD”

 I’ve yet to have anyone prove me wrong. LOL  Of course I don’t spread it around much either but I do listen when others question what I believe. And consider their points for damn sure. I will not be preached to however, I read the man written books myself.

 
 
321steve
18.1.25  321steve  replied to  321steve @18.1.24    2 months ago
called that “POWER” an entity, a spirit, or a force of nature 

Heck call it "The Big Bang Theory, I dont care. I call it GOD.

lol

 
 
Krishna
18.1.26  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.1    2 months ago
The universe did not come from literally nothing - that is a semantic contradiction.

Well, its a logical contradiction.

But is it not possible that there may be other dimensions that cannot be understood by logic?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, 
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. 
Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
 
 
Krishna
18.1.27  Krishna  replied to  321steve @18.1.25    2 months ago
Heck call it "The Big Bang Theory, I dont care.

BAZINGA!

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @18.1.26    2 months ago

It is a semantic contradiction because of the meaning of nothing.   It is, by definition, impossible for something to come from nothing - there is nothing there - not even dimensions.

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.29  Gordy327  replied to  321steve @18.1.24    2 months ago
we called that “POWER” an entity, a sprit, or a force of nature  and see if it does sound plausible. To me it does

There's really no difference.

WHATEVER arranged the atoms to be ALL they are IS what I call GOD”

You can call it whatever you want. But most people have a different idea as to what "god" is, often invoking a supernatural component.

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.23    2 months ago
I think that is the key with Steve's view.   He seems to have a pantheistic view.  IMO.

Now that's plausible. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
321steve
18.1.31  321steve  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.29    2 months ago
You can call it whatever you want. But most people have a different idea as to what "god" is, often invoking a supernatural component.

I totally understand that, I Also have no problem with what others believe.  That is their choice. To each their own !

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.32  gooseisgone  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.17    2 months ago
Current evidence supports the Big Bang.

Ok...... where did I believe the term is "Singularity" come from?  How where the components that created the big bang derived? At some point for the explosion to have taken place there needs to be something to "blow up", where did it come from.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.32    2 months ago
Ok...... where did I believe the term is "Singularity" come from?  

The term 'singularity' is the label science gave to the most primitive condition of the known universe.   Giving a label does not mean that science claims full understanding of the concept.   Dark energy and dark matter are labels too but science has almost no understanding of what they entail.

How where the components that created the big bang derived?

Science does not yet know.

At some point for the explosion to have taken place there needs to be something to "blow up", where did it come from.

Science does not yet know.


Science lives on the edge of human knowledge.   By definition.   So it is common, when discussing contemporary findings of science, to have a great deal of understanding up to a point and then almost no understanding beyond that point.   You understand why that is so, right?

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.34  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.14    2 months ago

Existence is blank, it has no color or shape or weight, it is nothing.  You hypothesize that the Universe came from Existence (or nothing).

In you second hypothesis you have added the step that Existence was here prior to a creator, please point me to the proof you used to come to this conclusion.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.35  gooseisgone  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @18.1.13    2 months ago
If magical flying spaghetti monster is just as plausible as an eternal universe or random chance

You are correct. My issue is no one knows how we got here. A magical spaghetti monster, eternal universe, big bang, a creator there is no absolute proof of any of them. 

 why do some feel it necessary to name, describe, assign traits and desires and then attempt to worship something that has neither been proved nor disproved?

It may be a way for humans to wrap their brains around how we came to be, it is as plausible any of the other options.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.34    2 months ago
Existence is blank, it has no color or shape or weight, it is nothing

Existence is nothing??   That is a direct contradiction with everything we know.   One thing we know is that existence is true.   We exist.   Our environment exists.   Existence is most definitely NOT nothing.   Very strange to have someone actually stipulate that existence = nothing.   This is a new one for me.

Existence is the first attribute of anything that exists.

You hypothesize that the Universe came from Existence (or nothing).

The universe is a form of the very substance of existence.  So are you.  So am I.   Yes it is an hypothesis but it is a rather well corroborated hypothesis.

In you second hypothesis you have added the step that Existence was here prior to a creator, please point me to the proof you used to come to this conclusion.

Simple.   To be a creator, the creator must be real - it must first exist.   By definition.   Anything that exists is 'of' existence. 

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.37  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.33    2 months ago
 You understand why that is so, right?

Yes, I do and you understand at that point a higher power is also possible, right.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.37    2 months ago
Yes, I do and you understand at that point a higher power is also possible, right.

Absolutely.   Our known universe could have been created by a sentient entity.   

 
 
321steve
18.1.39  321steve  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.36    2 months ago
To be a creator, the creator must be real - it must first exist.

sounds logical, but what if the creator is the creation itself though ?

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  321steve @18.1.39    2 months ago

It is possible that an entire sequence of 'creator' entities exist.   If our known universe is the creation of a sentient entity that sentient entity could itself be the creation of a higher power sentient entity, ad infinitum.

This is (very) wild speculation, but it is possible.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.41  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.36    2 months ago
Existence is nothing??   That is a direct contradiction with everything we know. 

Should have expanded when I said "existence is nothing", it is nothing that we can describe.

To be a creator, the creator must be real - it must first exist.

How do you know it doesn't?

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.41    2 months ago
Should have expanded when I said "existence is nothing", it is nothing that we can describe.

That is an entirely different statement.   Yes, describing existence is difficult.   The best we can do, it seems, is to describe it as eternal, first-cause and noting that there is an underlying substance of existence of which all things that exist are comprised.   Beyond that, we have no idea (it would seem).

How do you know it doesn't?

I do not know a creator does not exist.   I routinely acknowledge the possibility of a creator so why would you even ask this question?

But clearly that is not the point we were discussing.   The point is that a sentient creator is necessarily OF existence.   To be a sentient creator it must first exist.   That is why existence comes before a creator.  Existence is the first cause.   A creator would be an effect - an emergent property of existence itself.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.43  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.38    2 months ago
Our known universe could have been created by a sentient entity.

I appreciate you acknowledging that it's possible, that's all anyone can ask.

 
 
321steve
18.1.44  321steve  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.40    2 months ago
This is (very) wild speculation, but it is possible.

I agree, I personally have little need to take it this far.

I’m good with my simple interpretation of GOD.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.43    2 months ago
I appreciate you acknowledging that it's possible, that's all anyone can ask.

IMO, we should all follow the evidence to where it leads and be intellectually honest.   

But the vast majority of human beings do not operate this way.   We are inherently (it seems) uncomfortable with not having an answer to our questions.   So much so that we are (very) willing to simply accept as truth that which another mere human being states.   'Truth' by mere claim rather than by proof (or even strong evidence).    And if that accepted 'truth' is comforting then human beings seem to cling to the 'truth' to the point of profound intellectual dishonesty (dishonesty even with themselves).

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  321steve @18.1.44    2 months ago

Do you consider yourself a pantheist?   Your view seems to be quite aligned with pantheism.

 
 
321steve
18.1.47  321steve  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.46    2 months ago
Do you consider yourself a pantheist?

Thanks for asking, I had to look and see what a Pantheist is …lol

Quick answer: No, probably not, I dont limit what could be. 

When I came to my “conclusion of believe” it was after over a year of off and on reading of religious books.

The old and new testaments, the Book of Mormon and parts of he Koran, one afternoon I decided I’d read enough and headed out into the woods to think about WHAT I BELIEVED.

After coming to my conclusion I did not share it with many and still don’t “Preach” it. It was and is MY own personal conclusion.

After years I did see I was probably not alone in my style of believe when someone asked me if I was a Deist. I looked into what that meant at the time a little also and they may be more in line with what I believe but I don’t really care. I don’t have a need to Belong to a group to feel just fine with my own conclusion.

Thanks again

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
18.1.48  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.43    2 months ago
I appreciate you acknowledging that it's possible, that's all anyone can ask.

From the very start of this lengthy comment section this point has been made. It was a central theme, the difference between gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists, with virtually every atheist I've seen contribute here being among the agnostic atheists. That being a person who acknowledges that at this point in human development we have not invented tools fine enough to search in every possible corner of the universe, thus it always remains possible we will some day find evidence for some sentient creator. But at this point, we haven't found any such verifiable evidence of a sentient creator, thus we do not currently believe in such.

A gnostic atheist is absolutely sure in his belief that there is no God. Interestingly, this requires the same faith employed by gnostic theists who are absolutely certain there is a God. They almost always claim to know who that God is and what that Gods purpose is for mankind, thus their desire to push their faith on others even if by force. Look up "forced conversion" and it's a real eye opener.

The last category of course is the largest group, agnostic theists, who believe in the existence of a god or gods, but regard the basis of their belief as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in, some believing God is just a non-sentient power similar to the "force".

So if all you ask is that people acknowledge your version of God is possible, there are very few who would vehemently object, most people , even most atheists, would give you that sliver of possibility. But that doesn't mean any of us would think that sliver is enough to base our lives, cultures, school curriculum, justice system or government on.

 
 
epistte
18.1.49  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.43    2 months ago
I appreciate you acknowledging that it's possible, that's all anyone can ask.

Where is the evidence to support the existence of a sentient creator?  Please don't make the mistake of the watchmaker's fallacy or argument from ignorance when you reply. 

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.50  gooseisgone  replied to  epistte @18.1.49    2 months ago
Where is the evidence to support the existence of a sentient creator?

I have never said there was evidence, there is no evidence one way or the other, it is just possible.  

 
 
MrFrost
18.1.51  MrFrost  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.37    2 months ago
Yes, I do and you understand at that point a higher power is also possible, right.

It's also possible that our entire universe and everything we know, exists in a drop of water, in a mud puddle on some planet. 

 
 
18.1.52    replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.50    2 months ago
I have never said there was evidence, there is no evidence one way or the other, it is just possible.  

E.A   May I ask?::

 How do the Faithful Know of the existence of a " Black Hole " as Technically and Scientifically it " can not be seen " So do we have different rules for the Goose and The Gender? and if So why?

 Respond Quickly for this " Message will Self Destruct " By Means of the Moderators as " No Value " and or  " Off Topic "!!

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.53  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.32    2 months ago
Ok...... where did I believe the term is "Singularity" come from?

That is the scientific explanation of the condition leading to the formation of the universe.

  How where the components that created the big bang derived? At some point for the explosion to have taken place there needs to be something to "blow up", where did it come from.

The honest answer is no one knows. Science will not claim to have knowledge of such circumstances. But it does search for any evidence to explain it.

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.54  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @18.1.51    2 months ago
It's also possible that our entire universe and everything we know, exists in a drop of water, in a mud puddle on some planet.

Or in someone's dream? Or in the Matrix? Perhaps on some holodeck? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

I'm reminded of the last scene in the first men in Black movie, where aliens are playin marbles which contain whole galaxies. That kind of puts things in perspective.

 
 
epistte
18.1.55  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.50    2 months ago
I have never said there was evidence, there is no evidence one way or the other, it is just possible.  

A unicorn is theoretically possible but that does not mean that it does. Logically, religious people are making a positive claim that a sentient creator exists but they are not providing any empirical evidence to support their claim. Their claims rely on belief and faith that are the opposite of proof. In the absence of any empirical evidence of their claim of a sentient creator, we revert to the previous stance that there is no creator.  Science has provided proof of everything but the creation and that problem is slowly being answered as techology improves to allow those questions to be answered.  

A sentinet creator doesn't exist just because we cannot conclusively prove that it does not.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  @18.1.52    2 months ago

That question suggests a lack of even the most basic research on black holes.       

Hint:  how can you tell that in the wind is blowing in the distance?

 
 
18.1.57    replied to  TᵢG @18.1.56    2 months ago
That question suggests a lack of even the most basic research on black holes.        Hint:  how can you tell that in the wind is blowing in the distance?

E.A  So then YOU have " Faith " of the existence of what can NOT be seen and Base your Faith on " Supporting evidence " BUT only accept that on what YOU choose to, is there a word for that Starting with " B ______ "

Take your Hint and …....

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  @18.1.57    2 months ago
So then YOU have " Faith " of the existence of what can NOT be seen

No, we go by evidence.   Buy a vowel.   I gave you a link to a super simple answer to your question.   

 
 
18.1.59    replied to  TᵢG @18.1.58    2 months ago
No, we go

E.A  " We " Indeed a Religion of the " Blind Following the Blind "  

 A question, what is More Complex DNA   , RNA  or APT, Think Membrane.

 And for those that Believe in " Science " The Membrane acts like " Border Security " ( Customs )so it has to know, what, when and how?

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.60  gooseisgone  replied to  epistte @18.1.55    2 months ago
 religious people are making a positive claim that a sentient creator exists

Don't lump me in as a religious person.  You posted what I posted "it is just possible".

A sentinet creator doesn't exist just because we cannot conclusively prove that it does not.

NOTHING can be conclusively proven, so anything is possible including your unicorn, a mud puddle on another planet, black hole, the Matrix, sentient creator and any other ideas.   

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.60    2 months ago
NOTHING can be conclusively proven, so anything is possible including your unicorn, a mud puddle on another planet, black hole, the Matrix, sentient creator and any other ideas.  

Generally true.   So given 100% certainty is not attainable, we think in terms of what is more likely.   This is where sensible discussion can take place.    For example, would you say the Abrahamic God (the god of the Bible) is as likely as a sentient creator?    

The Abrahamic God has been given attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, perfection as well as a personality.   In addition, this god is on record (per ancient books) as making specific rules on how his creatures are to behave, what awaits them after they die, etc.   And, of course, this god is claimed to be the creator of the known universe.   Finally, in spite of all the many claims and thus potential items which could be evidenced, in all these years we have no evidence.    Nothing.

An abstract sentient creator is hypothesized as existing and able to create the known universe.   Nothing more.

Which is more likely:  the heavily attributed god of the Bible or an abstract sentient creator about which we know nothing?

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
18.1.62  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    2 months ago
This exists on both sides of the argument. 

It does not.  Your admission that you think cosmology is based on "magic" <del>speaks</del> screams volumes on the subject of ignorance.   The discovery of the Higgs boson which comes into existence when the massless photon passes through a particular type of magnetic field proved that mass can be created out of energy (as Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity predicted).  Or put another way mass can be created from masslessness or "nothing."  That's not "magic."  That's quantum physics.  

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.63  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.61    2 months ago

I don't know, I question the God in the Bible who allows bad things to happen to people for no apparent reason whatsoever.    

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.64  gooseisgone  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @18.1.62    2 months ago
you think cosmology is based on "magic"

I think that cosmology is a theory, you haven't explained how something is created from nothing.  

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.63    2 months ago

Among many other things.   For example, how can the arbiter of objective morality (God) never condemn as immoral the highly practiced act of enslaving human beings?   Worse, he makes rules for proper enslavement like this gem:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Just the tip of the iceberg.   Imagine the contradictions that arise from a god defined as omniscient.  An omniscient god who thus knows the future has basically created a bunch of automatons (us) who simply act out our roles (no choice) to the defined destiny.    Omniscience means free will is not logically possible.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.64    2 months ago
something is created from nothing

That is not what science claims.   Also, that is impossible given the meaning of 'nothing'.   I know Lawrence Krauss sensationalizes 'something from nothing' to sell his books, but the 'nothing' of which he refers is a net zero energy state.   There is something there - we just do not know what that something is.

 
 
epistte
18.1.67  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.66    2 months ago
That is not what science claims.   Also, that is impossible given the meaning of 'nothing'.   I know Lawrence Krauss sensationalizes 'something from nothing' to sell his books, but the 'nothing' of which he refers is a net zero energy state.   There is something there - we just do not know what that something is.

The universe evolving from nothing would violate the laws of thermodynamics. The law of conservative of mass and energy states that matter isn't created but it doesn't change states.  My bet is that dark matter plays a very large role. Our current mass and energy of the stars could be enough to trigger the big bang if it was concentrated in one point.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @18.1.67    2 months ago

Worse still, how can anything evolve from nothing?   Nothing is the absence of existence.   There is nothing there from which to evolve.

 
 
epistte
18.1.69  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.68    2 months ago
Worse still, how can anything evolve from nothing?   Nothing is the absence of existence.   There is nothing there from which to evolve.

That only happens in myths,.................. and religious beliefs.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.70  gooseisgone  replied to  epistte @18.1.67    2 months ago
The universe evolving from nothing would violate the laws of thermodynamics

Which is exactly what would have had to happened, why is it so hard for you to understand at some point there is "absolutely nothing"! There is no energy, no thermodynamics, no science, no something there that we can not see.  If you want to assume there is energy, or existence, or any other theory you can think of explain how it came to be and what was there before it. 

 
 
epistte
18.1.71  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.70    2 months ago
Which is exactly what would have had to happened, why is it so hard for you to understand at some point there is "absolutely nothing"!

If you understand the law of conservation of energy there was never nothing. It was always there but it was in a different state, even if it may not have been visible to the unaided eye.

There is no energy, no thermodynamics, no science, no something there that we can not see.  If you want to assume there is energy, or existence, or any other theory you can think of explain how it came to be and what was there before it. 

As of our current knowledge of the various sub-fields of physics, your idea doesn't work.  There was always something there.  If there was once a time when it wasn't there, then what was the trigger to create energy/matter? 

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.70    2 months ago
why is it so hard for you to understand at some point there is "absolutely nothing"

Either existence is eternal (and thus the substance of existence is eternal) or something came from nothing.

It is a semantic contradiction to claim something came from nothing.  Nothing is nothing - the absence of existence.   Impossible.

Thus we are left with existence being eternal.   Energy, forces, etc. - everything we know - is an emergent property of existence.   That is, everything we know is composed of the underlying substance of existence (whatever that is).


In short:  Nothing never changes.   It is always nothing because there is nothing there - nothing is the absence of existence.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.73  gooseisgone  replied to  epistte @18.1.71    2 months ago
 There was always something there.

Prove it!  

 If there was once a time when it wasn't there, then what was the trigger to create energy/matter? 

This is the point in time when a creator is as viable as anything else but no one knows.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.73    2 months ago
This is the point in time when a creator is as viable as anything else but no one knows.

The 'as viable' aspect does not seem to be correct.   Per my point @18.1.14:

800

A creator ('God') is possible, but introducing a sentient creator is an extra step.    First the creator must emerge from existence.   Then the creator must create the universe.   A sentient entity that can create the universe is necessarily more complex (and thus more difficult to emerge from existence) than the universe it creates.    It is therefore less likely than the universe directly emerging from existence.

And, if one wishes to argue that the creator did not emerge from existence but is itself eternal, that is equivalent to claiming the creator IS existence itself.   In that regard, one has entered into the realm of pantheism wherein 'God' is everything and everything is 'God'.    Which is fine, but that is also the top condition:   Existence → Universe.


Key concept here is that if the creator exists then it necessarily is of existence.   It emerged from existence.   Existence → Creator → Universe    vs.   Existence → Universe.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.75  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.73    2 months ago
Prove it!  

And this is easy to prove because it is definitional.   You are asking epistte to prove that something cannot emerge from nothing.    'Nothing' is the word we use to describe the absence of existence.   There is 'nothing' there to spawn 'something'.   By definition.

If there was not always 'something' (i.e. if existence itself is not eternal) we would not be here.   We exist therefore existence itself (something) is eternal.

In short, epistte @18.1.71: "was always something there".

 
 
epistte
18.1.76  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.73    2 months ago
Prove it!  

 I previously explained that is the law of conservation of energy in thermodynamics. Matters/energy is not created or destroyed. It merely changes form. That change of form proves that the matter in the universe has always existed.

This is the point in time when a creator is as viable as anything else but no one knows.

No, there is not a point in time when a creator acted according to current knowledge.  If God exists then who created God?  You cannot will yourself into existence.

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1.77  gooseisgone  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.74    2 months ago
creator IS existence itself

That may be the case.  I don't think you can label any of this. Our rock solid beliefs on either side don't apply, we can't draw up a flow chart and say this is how it was, because frankly we don't have a clue. Eternal is a difficult concept when you try and think about it.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1.77    2 months ago

'Nothing' is non-existence - the absolute absence of anything.   'Something' from 'nothing' is a contradiction by the very definition of the words.

Religious people do not believe that their god(s) emerged from nothing.    God(s) are imagined as either a product of other gods or are eternal.   No matter what there is always an eternal element.   Gods do not emerge from nothing.

Given every imagined god is perceived to exist, the foundational eternal element is existence itself.   Existence is common to everything.  The substance of existence (whatever that might be) is thus necessarily eternal and everything that exists is necessarily a form of that substance.


In short, we know existence is true because we are here.   We know existence cannot emerge from nothing.   Therefore existence is necessarily eternal.   Once one realizes that existence itself is eternal the concept of creator gods become less mysterious.

 
 
Heartland American
19  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

.... Therefore in the face of all the evidence that God exists and in the face of just plain common sense that every design has a designer – why do atheists deny the evidence? Why do atheists lie to themselves? Here’s why…

1. Atheists Experience Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance is a mental conflict which occurs when current beliefs are contradicted by new information or when current wrong beliefs are contradicted with the truth.
So in the case of the atheist – the atheist believes that nothing made everything – which is a lie?
Even though there is no observable or testable evidence, they believe that the universe and all living things are the product of evolution and not intelligent design.
So when the atheist is confronted with the truth that the universe and living things did not create themselves – just as a computer cannot create itself – the tendency for the atheist is to deny common sense rather than accept the truth.
The atheist chooses to believe that a computer, an aeroplane and a building are the result of intelligent beings. However they refuse to believe that a human, a bird or the entire universe are the result of an Intelligent Creator.

2. Atheists Love the Pleasures of Sin
Atheists lie to themselves because they love the pleasure of sin. They will not give up their sins. They love the pleasures of sin so much that the possibilities of being accountable for sin is something they would rather deny.
This is why the atheist not only denies the existence of God but atheists also deny the existence of sin itself. Atheists do not believe that there is such a thing called “sin”. They also do not believe in the existence of good and evil.
They would rather lie to themselves by denying the existence of sin or good and evil because admitting to the existence of sin would make the atheist morally and spiritually accountable.

3. Atheists Suppress God in Their Life
Think about it. Why do atheists try to convert religious people to atheism? Why do they attempt to mock God and Christianity?
If they don’t believe in God, why do they feel the need to oppose anything that resembles the values of God & Christianity?
Psalms 14:1 says “A fool says in his heart “There is no God…”. Now that scripture isn’t saying that atheists can’t think or that they are not intelligent. However this scripture exposes the fact that it is foolishness for a person to deny the existence of a Creator in the face of such evidence.
Romans 1:20 says that no one is without excuse when it comes to the existence of God because nature itself and all of creation testifies that God exists.
It is foolishness to believe that every design does NOT have a designer.
Romans 1:22 says “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”.

Atheists should therefore be honest with themselves.... http://www.inspiredwalk.com/4052/3-reasons-why-atheists-lie-to-themselves

 
 
Skrekk
19.1  Skrekk  replied to  Heartland American @19    2 months ago
every design has a designer

That's definitely one of the loonier and dumbest logical fallacies which Cretinists have come up with.

 
 
epistte
19.1.1  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @19.1    2 months ago
That's definitely one of the loonier and dumbest logical fallacies which Cretinists have come up with.

The environment is the designer.

 
 
Gordy327
19.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @19.1    2 months ago

And that's saying something. 

 
 
TᵢG
19.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @19.1    2 months ago

It is a word game.   Design, by definition, is the result of a designer.   The trick is that one must establish that the universe was designed.   Same trick goes for everything that is created has a creator.  Well, sure, but one must establish that the universe was created.

In both cases the creationist ignores the distinct possibility that the universe is the result of undirected forces.

 
 
Skrekk
19.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.3    2 months ago
Design, by definition, is the result of a designer.   The trick is that one must establish that the universe was designed.

Exactly.

Funny how many different logical fallacies the "watchmaker analogy" encompasses, everything from circular logic, a false premise to a very weak analogy.

 
 
TᵢG
19.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @19.1.4    2 months ago
Funny how many different logical fallacies the "watchmaker analogy" encompasses, everything from circular logic, a false premise to a very weak analogy.

If one is interested in studying logical fallacies and truly ugly debate tactics just observe the religious side of these debates.    I still am amazed that someone today would actually argue that slavery is not always immoral.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Phoenyx13
19.1.6  Phoenyx13  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.5    2 months ago
I still am amazed that someone today would actually argue that slavery is not always immoral.

oh i am amazed by that too, same with murder among other things

 
 
Skrekk
19.1.7  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.5    2 months ago
I still am amazed that someone today would actually argue that slavery is not always immoral.

It's not that uncommon for bible-babbling extremists.   Don't forget that both Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann signed a pro-slavery & anti-gay pledge when they were running for prez in 1011.

 
 
epistte
19.2  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @19    2 months ago
2. Atheists Love the Pleasures of SinAtheists lie to themselves because they love the pleasure of sin. They will not give up their sins. They love the pleasures of sin so much that the possibilities of being accountable for sin is something they would rather deny.

Sin doesn't naturally exist. It was created by religions to control gullible people who lack the ability to think logically.

3. Atheists Suppress God in Their Life

Logically you cannot suppress anything that has no empirical evidence of existing.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @19    2 months ago
The atheist chooses to believe that a computer, an aeroplane and a building are the result of intelligent beings. However they refuse to believe that a human, a bird or the entire universe are the result of an Intelligent Creator.

Atheists do not refuse to believe - that is a function of people who accept things as true or false based on faith.   Given good evidence that the universe was the result of a sentient intelligence, things would be quite different.  But, as it stands, there is no evidence -not a shred- that the awesome complexity of nature is the result of a sentient designer.   Yes reality is very complex, but incredulity is not evidence.

Atheists lie to themselves because they love the pleasure of sin. 

This is just too stupid to warrant a rebuttal.

Atheists Suppress God in Their Life

Atheists are people who are not convinced that a god exists.   That is it;  very simple.   No special agendas, no psychosis, nothing really at all other than the lack of good evidence.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3    2 months ago
But, as it stands, there is no evidence -not a shred- that the awesome complexity of nature is the result of a sentient designer.

Humans can only figure out "how" something happens. "The Mechanics". The "Why" things happen can't be proven by the "Almighty" science. 

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.1    2 months ago
The "Why" things happen can't be proven by the "Almighty" science. 

Questions such as:  'why do we exist' which ponder the meaning of life cannot be fully answered by science.   But such questions cannot be fully answered by any other means either.   Lots of people claim to have answers but the answers are simply human inventions.   Nobody knows the meaning of life - the answer is always simply human opinion.

However, science can offer answers to questions such as 'why do bad things happen to good people?' or 'why do we exist?".   You may not like the answers, but based on modern understanding of reality the very best answers from science are:

  • 'why do we exist?':   Our planet is positioned far enough from our sun to provide a temperature range that enables the evolution of life.   The elements present on Earth (mostly C) provide the necessary building blocks for life as we know it.   And over a process of billions of years life has evolved to the point where the species homo sapiens has emerged.
  • 'why do bad things happen to good people?':   Because nature is an undirected force.   Nature does not try to direct change so that only good things occur (good as perceived by human beings that is).   If one understands that concept, it is easy to see why bad and good happens.   It is also easy to see why beauty and ugliness occur or why some biological mechanisms seem brilliantly designed (e.g. the eagle eye) while others look like a Rube Goldberg invention (e.g. the laryngeal nerve).

Finally, science is not 'almighty'.  It is likely the most objective process we have for learning about reality.  It has amassed more actionable knowledge about reality than any other discipline in history.   Bottom line, science works - just look around and observe the engineering that is based on science.   Not almighty, not infallible, but demonstrably impressive.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.3  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.2    2 months ago
'why do we exist' which ponder the meaning of life cannot be fully answered by science.

So why constantly rule out the possibility of a higher being ?

Science gives us the "Mechanics" of reality all the time. Impressive yes, but in the mechanics ONLY !

There is ALWAYS at least two sides to a story.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.3    2 months ago
So why constantly rule out the possibility of a higher being ?

Who rules out the possibility of a sentient creator?   I, for one, routinely acknowledge that possibility.   Seems to me a lot of people do not carefully read what others write.   The only atheists who rule out the possibility of a sentient creator are the gnostic atheists (aka hard atheists).   They are a slim minority of atheists.   And, by the way, their position is unsupportable.

Science gives us the "Mechanics" of reality all the time. Impressive yes, but in the mechanics ONLY !

Religions invent answers.   Nothing but human imagination - no basis in fact.   What good is that?   It is not knowledge, it is fiction.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.5  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.4    2 months ago
Religions invent answers. 

Answers that aren't Scientific, yet here we are talking about the possibilities of what they talk about.

I, for one, Didn't single you out specifically in my comment at all. Seems some read into a statement, something that isn't there.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.5    2 months ago

Human beings have invented gods for all of recorded history.   No doubt well before that to explain weather (among other things).   It seems logical that when faced with something of enormous power (e.g. a thunderstorm) tiny creatures such as human beings would be awe-struck and presume it to be a powerful entity.

So yes we are discussing the very human belief in god(s).   And there have been thousands of gods invented by human beings.    

Do you rule out any of those possible gods?   After all, we are talking about them.

I, for one, Didn't single you out specifically in my comment at all. 

I know you did not.  I was noting what I have done here on NT, etc. since I know with certainty what I write.   Speaking for others now, you will be hard-pressed to find an atheist on NT who will state that it is impossible for the universe to be the result of a sentient entity.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.7  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.6    2 months ago
Do you rule out any of those possible gods? 

I only know of One possibility.

Again, they may have seen something we don't see now, but weren't as articulate about it as we are now.

We still say "Mother Nature" to this day, when things go hairy. We know the why, but still have that Olde perception.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.7    2 months ago
I only know of One possibility.

Why do you deny Brahman?   Brahman predates Yahweh and remains as the key god of Hinduism.   A billion people believe in Brahman.   On what grounds do you tell Hindus that their god is impossible?

Allah is the god of Islam.   Approximately 1.8 billion Muslims believe in Allah.  On what grounds do you tell Muslims that their god is impossible?

The Christian god varies per denomination.   Which denominations have the true god and which ones are wrong?   On what grounds do you tell Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses that their god is impossible?

In short, out of thousands of gods, on what basis do you accept the possibility of only one god and deny the possibility of the other gods?

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.9  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.8    2 months ago

Different names in no way means a Different God. After all, God is "Everywhere". jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

I called my Grandmother Nana. Others call their grandmother something else. Aren't Grandma's, no matter what you call them, still a Grandmother ?

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.9    2 months ago

Those are not just different names.   Those are profoundly different gods.   They contradict each other.   

Read up on Brahman, for example, and then state honestly that this is just another name for Yahweh.

Do you honestly think that Allah is just a name?   If so, you are violating the demands of god on a daily basis by not engaging in the Islamic prayer ritual.   Further, you would be forced to deny the divinity of Jesus.

The god of JW has no trinity.    

The only commonality for all these gods is that they are powerful.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.11  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.10    2 months ago
Those are profoundly different gods.

As they thought. We know better now.

Grandmas do different things too !

"Do you honestly think that Allah is just a name? If so, you are violating the demands of god on a daily basis by not engaging in the Islamic prayer ritual."

Yep !

Should I start hording guns and ammo now ?

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.11    2 months ago
As they thought. We know better now.

Yes we do.  That is the point I made upfront.

So given these are quite different gods, why do you deny Brahman or Allah?   Why do you deny the god of Jehovah's Witness?    On what grounds do you tell the Hindus, Muslims and JWs that their god cannot possibly exist?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
19.3.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.10    2 months ago
Those are not just different names.   Those are profoundly different gods.   They contradict each other.

We must first acknowledge that most believers have an incorrect view of most atheists who would be better defined as agnostic atheists who do not rule out the possibility of a God, they just simply see no evidence of one thus don't believe in one. When the believer is made aware of this difference, they often attack the atheist for not believing in their specific brand of God.

This is rather funny because they don't realize that by definition they're doing to the same thing to the Gods imagined and worshiped by other religions. Christians are calling Vishnu, Brahma, the flying spaghetti monster, Allah, Zeus, Odin and every other God worshiped throughout history besides their own, fake, false and imaginary with zero proof.

An agnostic atheist is just like a Christian believer who disbelieves in all other Gods/gods except they've gone one God further. I do not believe any of the invented Gods/gods/goddesses imagined and invented by humans throughout history exist or have ever existed, but I don't rule out the possibility that something we might define as God or a god might exist somewhere in this universe.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @19.3.13    2 months ago

Basically the agnostic atheist (the average atheist) is waiting for evidence that a god exists.   The average theist has already decided on their one god but have done so without evidence - simply based on what other human beings have stated.   The gnostic theists go one step further and hold that what other people have told them to believe is 100% truth - no possibility that they are wrong.

The gnostic theist is quite something to behold:  'my god is the only true god and there is no possibility that I am wrong'.   What would one call that:  naive hubris?

There are a few gnostic atheists but there seems to be many (most?) gnostic theists.   

 
 
Gordy327
19.3.15  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.11    2 months ago
The "Why" things happen can't be proven by the "Almighty" science.

Depends on the context. Are you referring to philosophical concepts?

So why constantly rule out the possibility of a higher being ?

No one is ruling out a possibility. But considering there is no evidence whatsoever of a higher being (which would need to be defined first), it becomes more of a probability of there not being a higher power. Neither is there any logical reason to assume there is without evidence.

Answers that aren't Scientific, yet here we are talking about the possibilities of what they talk about.

Perhaps in a more philosophical context.

I only know of One possibility.

So you can prove there is only one possibility? Even if that's the only "one" you know, do you automatically rule out other possibilities? if so, why?

Again, they may have seen something we don't see now, but weren't as articulate about it as we are now.

That is just speculation.

Different names in no way means a Different God. After all, God is "Everywhere"

That is false! Polytheistic religions clearly have different gods with different names, purposes, characteristics, ect. 

As they thought. We know better now.

How so? Are you suggesting polytheistic religions are wrong, but somehow monotheistic religions are right?

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @19.3.15    2 months ago

Theists claim all gods except theirs are false - only their god is true.

Atheists, in contrast, simply note that they are not convinced (sans evidence) that a god exists.

Generally, it is theists who claim 'impossible', not atheists.

 
 
Gordy327
19.3.17  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.16    2 months ago
Theists claim all gods except theirs are false - only their god is true.

Indeed. Which only shows the degree of intellectual dishonesty exhibited. Some talk of the "possibility" of a god, but are unwilling to consider the possibility of other god/s or that their own beliefs might be wrong.

Atheists, in contrast, simply note that they are not convinced (sans evidence) that a god exists.

But in some theists minds, that equates to hating/denying/suppressing/ect. god. Go figure. 

It is theists who claim 'impossible', not atheists.

Yep. Atheists simply want evidence or proof of the impossible first.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @19.3.17    2 months ago

I wonder if it is intellectual dishonesty or simply not realizing the logical consequences of the belief.

 
 
Gordy327
19.3.19  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.18    2 months ago

Perhaps both. There is certainly a lack of logical analysis.

 
 
MrFrost
19.3.20  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.7    2 months ago
I only know of One possibility.

Thor? Poseidon? 

 
 
charger 383
19.4  charger 383  replied to  Heartland American @19    2 months ago
2. Atheists Love the Pleasures of Sin

But who gets to decide if it I sin?

 
 
Skrekk
19.4.1  Skrekk  replied to  charger 383 @19.4    2 months ago

If it's not pleasurable you're not "sinning" right.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
19.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @19    2 months ago
Atheists should therefore be honest with themselves.

IOW, when everything else fails, go to the good ol' projection gambit. 

 
 
Heartland American
21  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

Science was originally a Christian idea.

The Christian understanding that the universe was created by the logos(“word,” “reason,” or “mind”) of God led to the belief that the world is rational and can be studied. The great progenitors of modern science—Copernicus, Galileo, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton—all professed belief in the Christian God and viewed their scientific studies as a mode of worship.

Science, however, has come to encompass not only the scientific method, but the scientific method plus naturalism (or materialism), a philosophy that ultimate reality is nothing but matter and energy and time and space; and that there is nothing transcendent, nothing actually spiritual—certainly no God.

There is a better approach.

In seeking to explain the origin of the universe, one should look not for the best naturalistic explanation, but for the best explanation, period.

In seeking to explain the origin of the universe, one should look not for the best naturalistic explanation, but for the best explanation, period. Even atheist professor Thomas Nagel acknowledges that, while the existence and nature of God are outside the realm of scientific inquiry, this “does not imply that there cannot be scientific evidence for or against the intervention of such a non-law-governed cause in the natural order.” As to the assumption that science can’t consider evidence for a designer which itself can’t be explained by science, Nagel concludes, “That assumption is without merit.”1

But does the evidence really point to a designer? Or is it more reasonable to continue to look, with so many atheistic scientists, for the elusive naturalistic explanation of the universe?

Let us consider four evidences from science that demonstrate that intelligent design is the explanation most in conformity with what we observe in nature.......

Conclusion

The finitude and fine-tuning of the cosmos, the problem of biogenesis, and the presence of information in organisms all contribute scientific evidence for the existence of an all-powerful, life-giving, intelligent being, which we call God.

In the past 60 years, I have seen science moving more and more consistently in every area toward a consistent vision of an ordered universe that points beyond itself to a design and a designer. In other words, it is becoming more and more evident that science and Scripture, rightly understood, are not incompatible.

Nevertheless, Scripture has revealed something that science could never have revealed. Science demonstrates that the universe was likely created by a powerful and great mind. But what it can never teach us, that Scripture does teach us, is that the One who holds the universe together is also the Lover of our souls. And that is reason for hope beyond this life.

Science and Scripture, rightly understood, are not incompatible. . . . Nevertheless, Scripture has revealed something that science could never have revealed. . . . that the One who holds the universe together is also the Lover of our souls..........https://kenboa.org/apologetics/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/