Try showing that you can use the birthday trick to back up whatever you think your argument is regarding:
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
QUOTE
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
No one knows because we only have a statistic of one and we don't know exactly what is required for life to form.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life |
No one knows because we only have a statistic of one and we don't know exactly what is required for life to form.
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
That depends on your definition of Gods. Generally it's an axiom that Gods cannot be proven or disproved, therefore there is no use in discussing the matter other than by wild speculation.
QUOTE
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
Again, impossible to determine in any way.
This has been explained to you before.... I have no idea why you keep revisiting it.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 19 2009, 04:03 PM)
No one knows because we only have a statistic of one and we don't know exactly what is required for life to form.
And that one is useless because it was not randomly selected.
As far as I can tell Nopeda believes what he believes because of strange occurances that have happened in his life. But one can not evaluate just how strange events are unless one has some understanding of probability.
Is something just plain weird or so weird someone must have made it that way?
If you join a lot of groups of 23 people and notice that half the time there are shared birthdays, you might think someone is somehow influencing how the people in the group are picked. You might think that a God is doing it.
But if you understand probability you will know that you should expect half of groups of 23 people to have shared birthdays.
I was going to ask Nopeda for one of his "must have been God that saved me" stories, but I don't think he will.
Paul Harvey (the rest of the story) told one similar story.
It was about a young guy named George. He was out driving one day and was wearing his seatbelt. He lost control of the car and the seatbelt gave way. George was thrown from the car and lived. The car ended up wrapped around tree with the driver area totally crushed. Had the seatbelt not given way, he would have been dead. George didn't think that Yoda saved him but he said he felt as if there was a force intervening.
He didn't go on to say that space aliens(ala Nopeda) saved his life but he did make some popular movies though.
Is something just plain weird or so weird someone must have made it that way?
If you join a lot of groups of 23 people and notice that half the time there are shared birthdays, you might think someone is somehow influencing how the people in the group are picked. You might think that a God is doing it.
But if you understand probability you will know that you should expect half of groups of 23 people to have shared birthdays.
I was going to ask Nopeda for one of his "must have been God that saved me" stories, but I don't think he will.
Paul Harvey (the rest of the story) told one similar story.
It was about a young guy named George. He was out driving one day and was wearing his seatbelt. He lost control of the car and the seatbelt gave way. George was thrown from the car and lived. The car ended up wrapped around tree with the driver area totally crushed. Had the seatbelt not given way, he would have been dead. George didn't think that Yoda saved him but he said he felt as if there was a force intervening.
He didn't go on to say that space aliens(ala Nopeda) saved his life but he did make some popular movies though.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 19 2009, 07:42 PM)
Try showing that you can use the birthday trick to back up whatever you think your argument is regarding:
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
If you can't solve a simple probability problem, it is highly unlikely that you can understand the effect of chance in your life.
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
If you can't solve a simple probability problem, it is highly unlikely that you can understand the effect of chance in your life.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 19 2009, 07:51 PM)
If you can't solve a simple probability problem, it is highly unlikely that you can understand the effect of chance in your life.
Does one plus one equal two?
or does 2+5=6 ignorance is bliss?
The word science comes from the Greek meaning knowledge
What is real? What is truth? Do you know?
If I say or have the state of being a scientist is that real?
What makes logic logical
If all truth is relative wouldn't that make reality not matter... So then I could say that I'm an atheist or scientist or a truth seeker or a clown and it wouldn't matter? And if we create our own realities isn't that evidence for a creator? Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame said: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
So ...
If I exist then 'I AM'
References:
René Descartes:(31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Definition of Science: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=...nition&ct=title
The Matrix (first one 1999 movie)
Logical Fallacies Info http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
God saying “I AM” Exodus 3:14
Other Resources:
Ultimate Proof of Creation (9780890515686): Dr Jason Lisle
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geusmHx4lK.FEA...e/dp/0890515689
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life
Does one plus one equal two?
or does 2+5=6 ignorance is bliss?
The word science comes from the Greek meaning knowledge
What is real? What is truth? Do you know?
If I say or have the state of being a scientist is that real?
What makes logic logical
If all truth is relative wouldn't that make reality not matter... So then I could say that I'm an atheist or scientist or a truth seeker or a clown and it wouldn't matter? And if we create our own realities isn't that evidence for a creator? Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame said: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
So ...
If I exist then 'I AM'
References:
René Descartes:(31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Definition of Science: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=...nition&ct=title
The Matrix (first one 1999 movie)
Logical Fallacies Info http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
God saying “I AM” Exodus 3:14
Other Resources:
Ultimate Proof of Creation (9780890515686): Dr Jason Lisle
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geusmHx4lK.FEA...e/dp/0890515689
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 19 2009, 02:12 PM)
Try showing that you can use the birthday trick to back up whatever you think your argument is regarding:
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
Happy birthday to all the atheists that might not exist????: http://www.dr-mikes-math-games-for-kids.co...math-trick.html
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
Happy birthday to all the atheists that might not exist????: http://www.dr-mikes-math-games-for-kids.co...math-trick.html
QUOTE (TracerTong+Aug 20 2009, 04:27 PM)
Does one plus one equal two?
or does 2+5=6 ignorance is bliss?
The word science comes from the Greek meaning knowledge
What is real? What is truth? Do you know?
If I say or have the state of being a scientist is that real?
What makes logic logical
If all truth is relative wouldn't that make reality not matter... So then I could say that I'm an atheist or scientist or a truth seeker or a clown and it wouldn't matter? And if we create our own realities isn't that evidence for a creator? Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame said: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
So ...
If I exist then 'I AM'
References:
René Descartes:(31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Definition of Science: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=...nition&ct=title
The Matrix (first one 1999 movie)
Logical Fallacies Info http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
God saying “I AM” Exodus 3:14
Other Resources:
Ultimate Proof of Creation (9780890515686): Dr Jason Lisle
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geusmHx4lK.FEA...e/dp/0890515689
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life
Is there nothing you guys can't pervert?
For the "I think therefore I am" to work for YOU, YOU have to say it or think it.
You can't make it work for another entity.
Does Popeye exist because he said "I yam what I yam"?
And how do you know God said that? Maybe the Bible is made up.
And I still like Phillip K. Dic k's quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
or does 2+5=6 ignorance is bliss?
The word science comes from the Greek meaning knowledge
What is real? What is truth? Do you know?
If I say or have the state of being a scientist is that real?
What makes logic logical
If all truth is relative wouldn't that make reality not matter... So then I could say that I'm an atheist or scientist or a truth seeker or a clown and it wouldn't matter? And if we create our own realities isn't that evidence for a creator? Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame said: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
So ...
If I exist then 'I AM'
References:
René Descartes:(31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Definition of Science: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=...nition&ct=title
The Matrix (first one 1999 movie)
Logical Fallacies Info http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
God saying “I AM” Exodus 3:14
Other Resources:
Ultimate Proof of Creation (9780890515686): Dr Jason Lisle
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geusmHx4lK.FEA...e/dp/0890515689
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life
Is there nothing you guys can't pervert?
For the "I think therefore I am" to work for YOU, YOU have to say it or think it.
You can't make it work for another entity.
Does Popeye exist because he said "I yam what I yam"?
And how do you know God said that? Maybe the Bible is made up.
And I still like Phillip K. Dic k's quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 19 2009, 04:03 PM)
I have no idea why you keep revisiting it.
To do one of two things:
1. Demonstrate that no one ever had a decent reason for bringing the birthday trick up to begin with.
or:
2. Find out how it applies to the possible existence of God or any other life in the universe IF! anyone has any clue and there really was a decent reason for bringing it up.
Actually 1. has already been proven by the fact that no one has yet been able to make any use of it at all, much less any decent use. That being the case we see that there was no decent reason for bringing it up to begin with, since there is STILL no decent reason. However
that doesn't mean it can't somehow still BE applied. Even though it's been revealed that the original intent was not respectable, IF! any of you have any clue how to use it the birthday trick still MIGHT have some positive value IF! anyone can figure out what it is 
.
To do one of two things:
1. Demonstrate that no one ever had a decent reason for bringing the birthday trick up to begin with.
or:
2. Find out how it applies to the possible existence of God or any other life in the universe IF! anyone has any clue and there really was a decent reason for bringing it up.
Actually 1. has already been proven by the fact that no one has yet been able to make any use of it at all, much less any decent use. That being the case we see that there was no decent reason for bringing it up to begin with, since there is STILL no decent reason. However
that doesn't mean it can't somehow still BE applied. Even though it's been revealed that the original intent was not respectable, IF! any of you have any clue how to use it the birthday trick still MIGHT have some positive value IF! anyone can figure out what it is .
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 20 2009, 12:29 PM)
To do one of two things:
1. Demonstrate that no one ever had a decent reason for bringing the birthday trick up to begin with.
or:
2. Find out how it applies to the possible existence of God or any other life in the universe IF! anyone has any clue and there really was a decent reason for bringing it up.
Actually 1. has already been proven by the fact that no one has yet been able to make any use of it at all, much less any decent use. That being the case we see that there was no decent reason for bringing it up to begin with, since there is STILL no decent reason. However that doesn't mean it can't somehow still BE applied. Even though it's been revealed that the original intent was not respectable, IF! any of you have any clue how to use it the birthday trick still MIGHT have some positive value IF! anyone can figure out what it is .
Why does anyone respond to this imbecile?
1. Demonstrate that no one ever had a decent reason for bringing the birthday trick up to begin with.
or:
2. Find out how it applies to the possible existence of God or any other life in the universe IF! anyone has any clue and there really was a decent reason for bringing it up.
Actually 1. has already been proven by the fact that no one has yet been able to make any use of it at all, much less any decent use. That being the case we see that there was no decent reason for bringing it up to begin with, since there is STILL no decent reason. However
that doesn't mean it can't somehow still BE applied. Even though it's been revealed that the original intent was not respectable, IF! any of you have any clue how to use it the birthday trick still MIGHT have some positive value IF! anyone can figure out what it is . Why does anyone respond to this imbecile?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 19 2009, 04:44 PM)
I was going to ask Nopeda for one of his "must have been God that saved me" stories, but I don't think he will.
Nothing that has happened to me could mean anything to you. I knew what I told you about was a waste of time when I told you. And similar things by millions of other people would all be a waste on you too. What could change that? Only you.
Nothing that has happened to me could mean anything to you. I knew what I told you about was a waste of time when I told you. And similar things by millions of other people would all be a waste on you too. What could change that? Only you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 20 2009, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
IF! any of you have any clue how to use it the birthday trick still MIGHT have some positive value IF! anyone can figure out what it is .
.Why does anyone respond to this imbecile?
Well you've certainly made it more than obvious that YOU have no clue
.
Well you've certainly made it more than obvious that YOU have no clue
.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 20 2009, 12:37 PM)
Why does anyone respond to this imbecile?
I've asked that often.
It's related to the reason that a little kid will poke at roadkill with a stick.
I've asked that often.
It's related to the reason that a little kid will poke at roadkill with a stick.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 20 2009, 05:39 PM)
Nothing that has happened to me could mean anything to you. I knew what I told you about was a waste of time when I told you. And similar things by millions of other people would all be a waste on you too. What could change that? Only you.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that space aliens saved George Lucas from being killed in his car accident?
Or any other form of "God"?
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that space aliens saved George Lucas from being killed in his car accident?
Or any other form of "God"?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 20 2009, 12:54 PM)
I've asked that often.
It's related to the reason that a little kid will poke at roadkill with a stick.
Roadkill deserves dignity compared to the filth that nopEda spews.
It's related to the reason that a little kid will poke at roadkill with a stick.
Roadkill deserves dignity compared to the filth that nopEda spews.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 20 2009, 05:39 PM)
Nothing that has happened to me could mean anything to you. I knew what I told you about was a waste of time when I told you. And similar things by millions of other people would all be a waste on you too. What could change that? Only you.
Also I don't appreciate David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissapear as much as someone that doesn't know how he did it, does.
That is people who don't know how he did it are more amazed than people who know how he did it.
Who do you think would know better? The ones that don't understand how he did it or the ones that make up their own stuff?
Also I don't appreciate David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissapear as much as someone that doesn't know how he did it, does.
That is people who don't know how he did it are more amazed than people who know how he did it.
Who do you think would know better? The ones that don't understand how he did it or the ones that make up their own stuff?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 20 2009, 06:51 PM)
Also I don't appreciate David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissapear as much as someone that doesn't know how he did it, does.
If God exists then things people learn about science teach us more about "how he did it". So to get an understanding a person would have to figure out how it could all work together and be realistic, which apparently I'm the only one making any attempt to do around here. It sux for me, since I had thought "physics" people discussing creation and evolution might actually be trying to think realistically about it , but nooooooooooooo.
If God exists then things people learn about science teach us more about "how he did it". So to get an understanding a person would have to figure out how it could all work together and be realistic, which apparently I'm the only one making any attempt to do around here. It sux for me, since I had thought "physics" people discussing creation and evolution might actually be trying to think realistically about it
, but nooooooooooooo. QUOTE (buttershug+)
That is people who don't know how he did it are more amazed than people who know how he did it.
Whether God exists or not it's equally fantastic that all of this somehow at some point came about out of supposedly "nothing"...God or no God doesn't mean anything. There are gods or there are not, and I feel strongly that it's most likely there are.
Whether God exists or not it's equally fantastic that all of this somehow at some point came about out of supposedly "nothing"...God or no God doesn't mean anything. There are gods or there are not, and I feel strongly that it's most likely there are.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Who do you think would know better? The ones that don't understand how he did it or the ones that make up their own stuff?
We know Copperfield is bullshit. We know the Easter Bunny etc are bullshit. We don't know the concept of God is bullshit. To me that's extremely significant. To you it's meaningless.
We know Copperfield is bullshit. We know the Easter Bunny etc are bullshit. We don't know the concept of God is bullshit. To me that's extremely significant. To you it's meaningless.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 22 2009, 03:46 PM)
We know Copperfield is bullshit. We know the Easter Bunny etc are bullshit. We don't know the concept of God is bullshit. To me that's extremely significant. To you it's meaningless.
So the difference is ignorance.
And you revel in it.
You believe there might be a God because you of what you don't know.
That's what's meaningless to you.
You don't know why I ask the birthday question, and as long as you don't know why you can believe it's meaningless. Therefore you refuse to learn about it
Thinking realistically means learning what is BS. Not refusing to learn because that means you have to stop believing.
Some people when shown how a magic trick work refuse to believe it is a trick. You are in the same catagory just not as extreme. But you still refuse to learn how things work because they leave you disillusioned.
So the difference is ignorance.
And you revel in it.
You believe there might be a God because you of what you don't know.
That's what's meaningless to you.
You don't know why I ask the birthday question, and as long as you don't know why you can believe it's meaningless. Therefore you refuse to learn about it
Thinking realistically means learning what is BS. Not refusing to learn because that means you have to stop believing.
Some people when shown how a magic trick work refuse to believe it is a trick. You are in the same catagory just not as extreme. But you still refuse to learn how things work because they leave you disillusioned.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 22 2009, 09:16 PM)
We know Copperfield is bullshit. We know the Easter Bunny etc are bullshit. We don't know the concept of God is bullshit.
Atheists know that God is bullshit, just like you know that the Easter bunny is bullshit.
By the way, do you think realistically about the Easter bunny ..you know...like an alien which brings you gifts on Easter? If you can think 'realistically' about God, then why not the easter bunny?
Atheists know that God is bullshit, just like you know that the Easter bunny is bullshit.
By the way, do you think realistically about the Easter bunny ..you know...like an alien which brings you gifts on Easter? If you can think 'realistically' about God, then why not the easter bunny?
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 22 2009, 04:22 PM)
Atheists know that God is bullshit, just like you know that the Easter bunny is bullshit.
By the way, do you think realistically about the Easter bunny ..you know...like an alien which brings you gifts on Easter? If you can think 'realistically' about God, then why not the easter bunny?
1+1=2
Fact: Truth Exists
An atheist is a person who tries to prove that “truth does not exist is true.
If the atheist absolutely proved that truth does not exist – That would be true.
By the way, do you think realistically about the Easter bunny ..you know...like an alien which brings you gifts on Easter? If you can think 'realistically' about God, then why not the easter bunny?
1+1=2
Fact: Truth Exists
An atheist is a person who tries to prove that “truth does not exist is true.
If the atheist absolutely proved that truth does not exist – That would be true.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 22 2009, 09:22 AM)
Atheists know that God is bullshit, just like you know that the Easter bunny is bullshit.
By the way, do you think realistically about the Easter bunny ..you know...like an alien which brings you gifts on Easter? If you can think 'realistically' about God, then why not the easter bunny?
Pwned!
By the way, do you think realistically about the Easter bunny ..you know...like an alien which brings you gifts on Easter? If you can think 'realistically' about God, then why not the easter bunny?
Pwned!
QUOTE (TracerTong+Aug 22 2009, 07:44 PM)
1+1=2
Fact: Truth Exists
An atheist is a person who tries to prove that “truth does not exist is true.
If the atheist absolutely proved that truth does not exist – That would be true.
No The atheist says you have not demonstrated knowledge of the truth.
You do not know the truth.
Did a God makes that woman's pain go away because she rubbed calf spit on her hands? (the one in the story I linked to)
Do you accept her evidence? If not then why not hers but you accept others.
Fact: Truth Exists
An atheist is a person who tries to prove that “truth does not exist is true.
If the atheist absolutely proved that truth does not exist – That would be true.
No The atheist says you have not demonstrated knowledge of the truth.
You do not know the truth.
Did a God makes that woman's pain go away because she rubbed calf spit on her hands? (the one in the story I linked to)
Do you accept her evidence? If not then why not hers but you accept others.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 22 2009, 07:46 PM)
Pwned!
More math fun... Solve the puzzles
X-Files: The _____ is out there.
“1+1=3” is like “Hellen Keller”
real numbers = imaginary numbers
Darwinism _ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles®
-------------
Questions: Constant Molecular interdependence for molecules to man evolution? Is everything xy=f(x)?
I forgot to add the following notes (on physics):
God can exist outside of and independant of His creation. Who created God? In the beginning God created...(see Gen. 1:1)
Time is relative. (physics)
More math fun... Solve the puzzles
X-Files: The _____ is out there.
“1+1=3” is like “Hellen Keller”
real numbers = imaginary numbers
Darwinism _ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles®
-------------
Questions: Constant Molecular interdependence for molecules to man evolution? Is everything xy=f(x)?
I forgot to add the following notes (on physics):
God can exist outside of and independant of His creation. Who created God? In the beginning God created...(see Gen. 1:1)
Time is relative. (physics)
QUOTE (TracerTong+Aug 22 2009, 02:58 PM)
God can exist outside of and independant of His creation. Who created God? In the beginning God created...(see Gen. 1:1)
Time is relative. (physics)
See John 1:
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
There is nothing more fundamental than God. Nothing existed prior to God, and God was not created or formed by any process.
Time is relative. (physics)
See John 1:
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
There is nothing more fundamental than God. Nothing existed prior to God, and God was not created or formed by any process.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 01:01 AM)
See John 1:
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
There is nothing more fundamental than God. Nothing existed prior to God, and God was not created or formed by any process.
The Bible also indicates that the Earth is around 6,000 years old.
Radio dating techniques show it is older than that.
Some people have incorrectly said that the atom bomb proves that radio dating is not accurate. But they work on different principles.
Anyone that understands how they would work knows that it is a nonsense argument. and if a person does study it and does understand it but continues to repeat it then they are purposefully attempting to deceive people.
And anyone that does not understand it, should not use it without first studying it.
The Bible having something not literally accurate means that everything in it must be validated separately.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
There is nothing more fundamental than God. Nothing existed prior to God, and God was not created or formed by any process.
The Bible also indicates that the Earth is around 6,000 years old.
Radio dating techniques show it is older than that.
Some people have incorrectly said that the atom bomb proves that radio dating is not accurate. But they work on different principles.
Anyone that understands how they would work knows that it is a nonsense argument. and if a person does study it and does understand it but continues to repeat it then they are purposefully attempting to deceive people.
And anyone that does not understand it, should not use it without first studying it.
The Bible having something not literally accurate means that everything in it must be validated separately.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 22 2009, 08:57 PM)
The Bible also indicates that the Earth is around 6,000 years old.
Radio dating techniques show it is older than that.
Some people have incorrectly said that the atom bomb proves that radio dating is not accurate. But they work on different principles.
Anyone that understands how they would work knows that it is a nonsense argument. and if a person does study it and does understand it but continues to repeat it then they are purposefully attempting to deceive people.
And anyone that does not understand it, should not use it without first studying it.
The Bible having something not literally accurate means that everything in it must be validated separately.
Radio dating has more fallacies in it than can be numbered.
I'll just look at one for starters, that being the assumption of what the natural condition of the specimen was "before" decay.
After all, you find a specimen, whether rock, pottery, asteroid, whatever, and you make assumptions of what the initial ratios of elements were at the time this object was formed. You had nothing there on site to validate this assumption, it is simply an assumption.
How do you know a meteor wasn't formed 6000 years ago with atomic ratios corresponding to what it has now? You cannot prove the meteor started out with X parent element and Y amount of daughter element, and then decayed. For all you can prove, it may have started out virtually identical to what it is now.
In fact, there are actuallly a near infinite number of ages that a rock could be for any given ratio of parent and (assumed to be) daughter element, because it could have in fact been formed with any amount of daughter element already present, either at the time of the creation of the universe, or some time since then.
So this is one key reason Radio dating is ridiculous. One must make an unverifiable, arbitrary assumption about the initial conditions of the specimen.
====
As for the age given in the Bible.
I have done the "add up the ages" thing, and I got a number somewhere around 6700 years. However, there are two holes where we cannot get the time exactly. Stephen gives an approximation of the first hole, which is in the book of Judges, but the other hole occurs between Daniel and Jesus, and cannot be dated exactly. The age of humanity is not the same as the age of the earth because humans were made on the sixth day.
The first several days of the creation account cannot necessarily mean 24 hour, solar days, because those were given before the celestial objects and laws were even established.
The plants God created on the third day could live without the sun, moon, and stars due to the light God created on the first day. Cosmic background radiation anyone? The cosmic background supports the creation account, because it shows that light and radiation pre-date the stars, planets, and galaxies.
Radio dating techniques show it is older than that.
Some people have incorrectly said that the atom bomb proves that radio dating is not accurate. But they work on different principles.
Anyone that understands how they would work knows that it is a nonsense argument. and if a person does study it and does understand it but continues to repeat it then they are purposefully attempting to deceive people.
And anyone that does not understand it, should not use it without first studying it.
The Bible having something not literally accurate means that everything in it must be validated separately.
Radio dating has more fallacies in it than can be numbered.
I'll just look at one for starters, that being the assumption of what the natural condition of the specimen was "before" decay.
After all, you find a specimen, whether rock, pottery, asteroid, whatever, and you make assumptions of what the initial ratios of elements were at the time this object was formed. You had nothing there on site to validate this assumption, it is simply an assumption.
How do you know a meteor wasn't formed 6000 years ago with atomic ratios corresponding to what it has now? You cannot prove the meteor started out with X parent element and Y amount of daughter element, and then decayed. For all you can prove, it may have started out virtually identical to what it is now.
In fact, there are actuallly a near infinite number of ages that a rock could be for any given ratio of parent and (assumed to be) daughter element, because it could have in fact been formed with any amount of daughter element already present, either at the time of the creation of the universe, or some time since then.
So this is one key reason Radio dating is ridiculous. One must make an unverifiable, arbitrary assumption about the initial conditions of the specimen.
====
As for the age given in the Bible.
I have done the "add up the ages" thing, and I got a number somewhere around 6700 years. However, there are two holes where we cannot get the time exactly. Stephen gives an approximation of the first hole, which is in the book of Judges, but the other hole occurs between Daniel and Jesus, and cannot be dated exactly. The age of humanity is not the same as the age of the earth because humans were made on the sixth day.
The first several days of the creation account cannot necessarily mean 24 hour, solar days, because those were given before the celestial objects and laws were even established.
The plants God created on the third day could live without the sun, moon, and stars due to the light God created on the first day. Cosmic background radiation anyone? The cosmic background supports the creation account, because it shows that light and radiation pre-date the stars, planets, and galaxies.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 11:56 AM)
Radio dating has more fallacies in it than can be numbered.
I'll just look at one for starters, that being the assumption of what the natural condition of the specimen was "before" decay.
After all, you find a specimen, whether rock, pottery, asteroid, whatever, and you make assumptions of what the initial ratios of elements were at the time this object was formed. You had nothing there on site to validate this assumption, it is simply an assumption.
How do you know a meteor wasn't formed 6000 years ago with atomic ratios corresponding to what it has now? You cannot prove the meteor started out with X parent element and Y amount of daughter element, and then decayed. For all you can prove, it may have started out virtually identical to what it is now.
In fact, there are actuallly a near infinite number of ages that a rock could be for any given ratio of parent and (assumed to be) daughter element, because it could have in fact been formed with any amount of daughter element already present, either at the time of the creation of the universe, or some time since then.
So this is one key reason Radio dating is ridiculous. One must make an unverifiable, arbitrary assumption about the initial conditions of the specimen.
OMFG. That was one long string of idiocies.
Let's look at Uranium-Lead dating. This method allows us to successfully date rocks up to billions of years old. Uranium 238 (the most common isotope) decays into Lead 206. When rock is in a liquid states, metals of different masses separate into layers (like oil and water in a glass). Lead and Uranium would not be blended together as an initial state. Even if it was, it would be obvious as Lead and Uranium atoms would be grouped together and not randomly distributed. As millions of years go by, Uranium atoms go through several decay stages and finally end up at the stable Lead 206. When we analyze a rock sample, we can see that the Lead is randomly distributed and obviously did not start out as Lead.
Here's the article: Uranium-lead dating
Your doubt of scientific methods shows that you have NEVER studied geology, and don't know the first thing about it. Study it, then you can make "critcisms."
I'll just look at one for starters, that being the assumption of what the natural condition of the specimen was "before" decay.
After all, you find a specimen, whether rock, pottery, asteroid, whatever, and you make assumptions of what the initial ratios of elements were at the time this object was formed. You had nothing there on site to validate this assumption, it is simply an assumption.
How do you know a meteor wasn't formed 6000 years ago with atomic ratios corresponding to what it has now? You cannot prove the meteor started out with X parent element and Y amount of daughter element, and then decayed. For all you can prove, it may have started out virtually identical to what it is now.
In fact, there are actuallly a near infinite number of ages that a rock could be for any given ratio of parent and (assumed to be) daughter element, because it could have in fact been formed with any amount of daughter element already present, either at the time of the creation of the universe, or some time since then.
So this is one key reason Radio dating is ridiculous. One must make an unverifiable, arbitrary assumption about the initial conditions of the specimen.
OMFG. That was one long string of idiocies.
Let's look at Uranium-Lead dating. This method allows us to successfully date rocks up to billions of years old. Uranium 238 (the most common isotope) decays into Lead 206. When rock is in a liquid states, metals of different masses separate into layers (like oil and water in a glass). Lead and Uranium would not be blended together as an initial state. Even if it was, it would be obvious as Lead and Uranium atoms would be grouped together and not randomly distributed. As millions of years go by, Uranium atoms go through several decay stages and finally end up at the stable Lead 206. When we analyze a rock sample, we can see that the Lead is randomly distributed and obviously did not start out as Lead.
Here's the article: Uranium-lead dating
Your doubt of scientific methods shows that you have NEVER studied geology, and don't know the first thing about it. Study it, then you can make "critcisms."
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 22 2009, 04:15 PM)
You don't know why I ask the birthday question, and as long as you don't know why you can believe it's meaningless. Therefore you refuse to learn about it
In contrast to that bs I have CHALLENGED you to try to explain any significance to it, and as I correctly predicted you have shown that there is none.
In contrast to that bs I have CHALLENGED you to try to explain any significance to it, and as I correctly predicted you have shown that there is none.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Thinking realistically means learning what is BS.
You have very clearly taught me that your attempt with the birthday trick was insignificant bs.
You have very clearly taught me that your attempt with the birthday trick was insignificant bs.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 22 2009, 04:22 PM)
Atheists know that God is bullshit
There's no way any of you COULD know that. You have put your faith in that possibility being the correct one, but I have no reason to put my own faith in it too.
There's no way any of you COULD know that. You have put your faith in that possibility being the correct one, but I have no reason to put my own faith in it too.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 23 2009, 12:56 PM)
There's no way any of you COULD know that. You have put your faith in that possibility being the correct one, but I have no reason to put my own faith in it too.
The fact that idiots like you exist is enough for me to consider that idiots like you dreamed god up in the first place. You still have not addressed how god is different from the Easter Bunny.
The fact that idiots like you exist is enough for me to consider that idiots like you dreamed god up in the first place. You still have not addressed how god is different from the Easter Bunny.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 23 2009, 04:52 PM)
In contrast to that bs I have CHALLENGED you to try to explain any significance to it, and as I correctly predicted you have shown that there is none.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Thinking realistically means learning what is BS.
You have very clearly taught me that your attempt with the birthday trick was insignificant bs.
The significance is that it shows your ignorance.
You are basing your speculations on what you don't know. That is the significance of the birthday question.
Do you believe that George Lucas was saved by God or space aliens as opposed to being careless then lucky?
If you believe the former it is based on such a lack of understanding of probability that you don't understand the birthday question.
Birthday question easy question
George Lucas question not easy question.
That is the significance.
thinking realistically is based on what you know not what you don't know. and learning to fill in the gaps of what you don't know.
All you know of God's existence is that we don't know he does not exist.
If I exist I almost certainly would have to be an alien.
You sure aren't the sharpest tool in the bunch.
That proves the test is defective.
What good is a test that does not always work?
What good is a test that fails so easily.
Would you buy someone a pregnancy test that always gives the same answer no matter who uses it?
You have very clearly taught me that your attempt with the birthday trick was insignificant bs.
The significance is that it shows your ignorance.
You are basing your speculations on what you don't know. That is the significance of the birthday question.
Do you believe that George Lucas was saved by God or space aliens as opposed to being careless then lucky?
If you believe the former it is based on such a lack of understanding of probability that you don't understand the birthday question.
Birthday question easy question
George Lucas question not easy question.
That is the significance.
thinking realistically is based on what you know not what you don't know. and learning to fill in the gaps of what you don't know.
All you know of God's existence is that we don't know he does not exist.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 23 2009, 10:26 PM)
There's no way any of you COULD know that. You have put your faith in that possibility being the correct one, but I have no reason to put my own faith in it too.
We know it like you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. No difference.
I see that you ignored my previous question. How come you don't think 'realistically' about the Easter Bunny?
We know it like you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. No difference.
I see that you ignored my previous question. How come you don't think 'realistically' about the Easter Bunny?
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 23 2009, 09:07 PM)
We know it like you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. No difference.
I see that you ignored my previous question. How come you don't think 'realistically' about the Easter Bunny?
We are afraid of Santa Claus coming to town!
I see that you ignored my previous question. How come you don't think 'realistically' about the Easter Bunny?
We are afraid of Santa Claus coming to town!
QUOTE (TracerTong+Aug 24 2009, 09:35 PM)
We are afraid of Santa Claus coming to town!
I am not the Christian.
I am not the Christian.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 23 2009, 05:26 PM)
You are basing your speculations on what you don't know. That is the significance of the birthday question.
The same obviously applies to you, since you can't make any use of it even when challenged to do so.
The same obviously applies to you, since you can't make any use of it even when challenged to do so.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 23 2009, 09:07 PM)
How come you don't think 'realistically' about the Easter Bunny?
I do.
I do.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 25 2009, 12:20 AM)
I do.
Just take every argument you have made till date with Atheists and God and apply it to yourself and the Easter Bunny. You will get the answer without the need to come to this forum.
Just take every argument you have made till date with Atheists and God and apply it to yourself and the Easter Bunny. You will get the answer without the need to come to this forum.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 24 2009, 08:11 PM)
Just take every argument you have made till date with Atheists and God and apply it to yourself and the Easter Bunny.
There is certainly no reason why I would do that, or even try to.
There is certainly no reason why I would do that, or even try to.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 26 2009, 02:37 PM)
There is certainly no reason why I would do that, or even try to.
The reason you do that is evidence first.
You do the same test on both sides.
The reason you do that is evidence first.
You do the same test on both sides.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 26 2009, 04:25 PM)
The reason you do that is evidence first.
You do the same test on both sides.
Let's try your fun idea to see if it's worth anything:
If the EB exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Aaaaaah nope. Nothing there...let's try it your other way:
If I exist I almost certainly would have to be an alien.
You sure aren't the sharpest tool in the bunch.
You do the same test on both sides.
Let's try your fun idea to see if it's worth anything:
If the EB exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Aaaaaah
nope. Nothing there...let's try it your other way:If I exist I almost certainly would have to be an alien.
You sure aren't the sharpest tool in the bunch.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 30 2009, 06:19 PM)
If I exist I almost certainly would have to be an alien.
You sure aren't the sharpest tool in the bunch. That proves the test is defective.
What good is a test that does not always work?
What good is a test that fails so easily.
Would you buy someone a pregnancy test that always gives the same answer no matter who uses it?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 30 2009, 07:49 PM)
That proves the test is defective.
What good is a test that does not always work?
What good is a test that fails so easily.
Would you buy someone a pregnancy test that always gives the same answer no matter who uses it?
How bout this one will pi (circumference/diameter)be the same on Mars? What makes 1+1 true?
What good is a test that does not always work?
What good is a test that fails so easily.
Would you buy someone a pregnancy test that always gives the same answer no matter who uses it?
How bout this one will pi (circumference/diameter)be the same on Mars? What makes 1+1 true?
What makes pi the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter in a mathmatical choice of definition. What makes it constant is the assumption of working within a perfect Euclidean plane.
And 1+1 isn't true; 1+1 is 2 -- also by definition -- the definition of 2.
You really aren't asking good questions.
And 1+1 isn't true; 1+1 is 2 -- also by definition -- the definition of 2.
You really aren't asking good questions.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 1 2009, 01:59 AM)
What makes pi the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter in a mathmatical choice of definition. What makes it constant is the assumption of working within a perfect Euclidean plane.
And 1+1 isn't true; 1+1 is 2 -- also by definition -- the definition of 2.
You really aren't asking good questions.
Your right I was trying to talk about universal truth... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/ar...th_mario_livio/
Take it away maestro
It's late; have a good one
And 1+1 isn't true; 1+1 is 2 -- also by definition -- the definition of 2.
You really aren't asking good questions.
Your right I was trying to talk about universal truth... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/ar...th_mario_livio/
Take it away maestro
It's late; have a good one
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 05:02 PM)
The fact that idiots like you exist is enough for me to consider that idiots like you dreamed god up in the first place. You still have not addressed how god is different from the Easter Bunny.
Lets put this another way (I'm in a mood to fight) if there is no God nothing is real
Lets put this another way (I'm in a mood to fight) if there is no God nothing is real
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 10 2009, 10:48 PM)
Lets put this another way (I'm in a mood to fight) if there is no God nothing is real
And if there is a god, only He/She or It is real and we are simply slaves to Its intentions.
And if there is a god, only He/She or It is real and we are simply slaves to Its intentions.
TracerTong
Oh, I don't know, we killed Ba'al, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Saturn, Jupiter and a thousaand other gods and the world went on existing. Your god will be no different when he disappears, reality will continue unaffected by his passing into history.
Grumpy
QUOTE
if there is no God nothing is real
Oh, I don't know, we killed Ba'al, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Saturn, Jupiter and a thousaand other gods and the world went on existing. Your god will be no different when he disappears, reality will continue unaffected by his passing into history.
Grumpy
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 19 2009, 02:12 PM)
Try showing that you can use the birthday trick to back up whatever you think your argument is regarding:
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
There was this puzzle I worked on in high school. A drawing of a square had 5 rooms in it 3 top, two bottom (maybe). With entrances to the rooms. You had to draw a line through all the rooms. Think it had to do with circuitry. Any ideas of what it was?
1. the likelyhood of other planets that contain life
2. whether or not there are gods in the universe
3. if gods do exist, whether or not any of them have had anything to do with Earth
There was this puzzle I worked on in high school. A drawing of a square had 5 rooms in it 3 top, two bottom (maybe). With entrances to the rooms. You had to draw a line through all the rooms. Think it had to do with circuitry. Any ideas of what it was?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 30 2009, 07:49 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If I exist I almost certainly would have to be an alien.
You sure aren't the sharpest tool in the bunch.
You sure aren't the sharpest tool in the bunch.That proves the test is defective.
It only proves that your suggestion was a piss poor one at "best". If you can improve on it and make it more realistic somehow, then why not try doing that?
at "best". If you can improve on it and make it more realistic somehow, then why not try doing that?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 15 2009, 08:47 PM)
It only proves that your suggestion was a piss poor one at "best". If you can improve on it and make it more realistic somehow, then why not try doing that?
That would be a waste of time given your inability to comprehend the simplest ideas.
at "best". If you can improve on it and make it more realistic somehow, then why not try doing that? That would be a waste of time given your inability to comprehend the simplest ideas.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 10 2009, 11:28 PM)
And if there is a god, only He/She or It is real and we are simply slaves to Its intentions.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 15 2009, 08:55 PM)
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
"...because thats how God wants it to be" can be used to describe anything. It is a cop-out.
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
"...because thats how God wants it to be" can be used to describe anything. It is a cop-out.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 15 2009, 03:17 PM)
That proves the test is defective.[/QUOTE]It only proves that your suggestion was a piss poor one at "best". If you can improve on it and make it more realistic somehow, then why not try doing that?
Using tests that only pass, are not real tests.
Making it more realistic to make it pass does not validate the test.
at "best". If you can improve on it and make it more realistic somehow, then why not try doing that? Using tests that only pass, are not real tests.
Making it more realistic to make it pass does not validate the test.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 15 2009, 03:25 PM)
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
Why would a god want to create a world where there is so much needless suffering?
If what you're saying is true, consider the most horrible act you can think of that has occurred or devastating natural disaster etc. Your god wanted it to happen.
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
Why would a god want to create a world where there is so much needless suffering?
If what you're saying is true, consider the most horrible act you can think of that has occurred or devastating natural disaster etc. Your god wanted it to happen.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
"...because thats how God wants it to be" can be used to describe anything. It is a cop-out.
You made that post the way you did because that's how you wanted it to be. Why do you think pointing the fact out is a cop-out? Do you think that examining it and trying to figure out why you presented it as you did would be an even bigger cop-out, or what?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That's a very significant aspect of the situation that not many people seem able to appreciate.
Why would a god want to create a world where there is so much needless suffering?
Maybe it's not needless. Maybe it's a necessary part of having a world like this. How would you make it better? Not what do you think you might do, but how exactly do you think you would make it better if you were in God's position?
Maybe it's not needless. Maybe it's a necessary part of having a world like this. How would you make it better? Not what do you think you might do, but how exactly do you think you would make it better if you were in God's position?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
If what you're saying is true, consider the most horrible act you can think of that has occurred or devastating natural disaster etc. Your god wanted it to happen.
You don't have any idea about that, and I know you don't.
You don't have any idea about that, and I know you don't.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Making it more realistic to make it pass does not validate the test. Here we are again with you trying to impose another party trick that has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about. Well you couldn't make the birthday trick fit the situation , but do you think you can somehow make this one fit? Nah...I'll correctly predict in advance that you can not.
Here we are again with you trying to impose another party trick that has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about. Well you couldn't make the birthday trick fit the situation , but do you think you can somehow make this one fit? Nah...I'll correctly predict in advance that you can not.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
QUOTE (nopEda asked+)
why not try doing that?]
Maybe it's not needless. Maybe it's a necessary part of having a world like this. How would you make it better? Not what do you think you might do, but how exactly do you think you would make it better if you were in God's position?
But the point is regardless of whether it is needless or not, if you posit a god then something as natural as ie; A Tsunami, requires an ethical explanation along with the technical one.
It is you who claimed that:
It is you who claimed that:
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
If your god wants things to be the way they are and if we realistically consider his existence, then it only seems reasonable to wonder why a god would create Tsunamis that kill and displace innocent people? What's his problem?
If your god wants things to be the way they are and if we realistically consider his existence, then it only seems reasonable to wonder why a god would create Tsunamis that kill and displace innocent people? What's his problem?
If he wants us to have the freedom we have then he can't prove his existence to the whole world. That doesn't mean he deliberately triggers every puff of wind and every photon that flies out of the sun...
That would be a waste of time
I don't believe he could do it either. He couldn't do the birthday trick, and he can't do this one. So the question is: Why does he want to think he can use tricks that he can't use? Do you think he honestly believes anyone is fooled into thinking he has managed to pull either of them off ?
I don't believe he could do it either. He couldn't do the birthday trick, and he can't do this one. So the question is: Why does he want to think he can use tricks that he can't use? Do you think he honestly believes anyone is fooled into thinking he has managed to pull either of them off ?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 16 2009, 02:58 PM)
Maybe it's not needless. Maybe it's a necessary part of having a world like this. How would you make it better? Not what do you think you might do, but how exactly do you think you would make it better if you were in God's position?
But the point is regardless of whether it is needless or not, if you posit a god then something as natural as ie; A Tsunami, requires an ethical explanation along with the technical one.
QUOTE
You don't have any idea about that, and I know you don't.
It is you who claimed that:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't have any idea about that, and I know you don't. |
It is you who claimed that:
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
If your god wants things to be the way they are and if we realistically consider his existence, then it only seems reasonable to wonder why a god would create Tsunamis that kill and displace innocent people? What's his problem?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 16 2009, 08:25 PM)
You made that post the way you did because that's how you wanted it to be. Why do you think pointing the fact out is a cop-out? Do you think that examining it and trying to figure out why you presented it as you did would be an even bigger cop-out, or what?
You are trying to divert the topic.
"...because thats how God wants it to be" is not a reasonable argument. It doesn't explain anything and so it is a cop out.
You are trying to divert the topic.
"...because thats how God wants it to be" is not a reasonable argument. It doesn't explain anything and so it is a cop out.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 16 2009, 09:54 PM)
If your god wants things to be the way they are and if we realistically consider his existence, then it only seems reasonable to wonder why a god would create Tsunamis that kill and displace innocent people? What's his problem?
If he wants us to have the freedom we have then he can't prove his existence to the whole world. That doesn't mean he deliberately triggers every puff of wind and every photon that flies out of the sun...
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 16 2009, 10:58 PM)
You are trying to divert the topic.
"...because thats how God wants it to be" is not a reasonable argument. It doesn't explain anything and so it is a cop out.
If God wants us to have the freedoms we have he can't prove his existence to the entire planet. Instead he has to do it the way he's doing it if he exists. Why haven't you people figured out such simple and obvious things for yourselves? Why can't you comprehend them even after they're pointed out for you???
"...because thats how God wants it to be" is not a reasonable argument. It doesn't explain anything and so it is a cop out.
If God wants us to have the freedoms we have he can't prove his existence to the entire planet. Instead he has to do it the way he's doing it if he exists. Why haven't you people figured out such simple and obvious things for yourselves? Why can't you comprehend them even after they're pointed out for you???
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 17 2009, 10:17 PM)
If God wants us to have the freedoms we have he can't prove his existence to the entire planet. Instead he has to do it the way he's doing it if he exists. Why haven't you people figured out such simple and obvious things for yourselves? Why can't you comprehend them even after they're pointed out for you???
What freedoms?
What freedoms?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 17 2009, 10:12 PM)
If he wants us to have the freedom we have then he can't prove his existence to the whole world. That doesn't mean he deliberately triggers every puff of wind and every photon that flies out of the sun...
Then what does he trigger? What does he/she/it do that could not occur naturally?
Sounds like you're arguing your god into redundancy. Good tactic!
Then what does he trigger? What does he/she/it do that could not occur naturally?
Sounds like you're arguing your god into redundancy. Good tactic!
If God exists he must be an alien.
Unless rpenner bans him nopEda has you all in his hip pocket.
I might as well join the winning side of this argurment.
Unless rpenner bans him nopEda has you all in his hip pocket.
I might as well join the winning side of this argurment.
If fairies exist, they must be magic.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 18 2009, 04:09 PM)
If fairies exist, they must be magic.
Maybe the Sky Fairy I here so much of around here is a space alien and it's magic comes from a device able to make pixie dust.
Maybe the Sky Fairy I here so much of around here is a space alien and it's magic comes from a device able to make pixie dust.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 17 2009, 10:28 PM)
What freedoms?
I see what you mean. I have the freedom to consider that he may or may not exist, but not everyone has that freedom. Some people feel they know he exists, and others feel they know he does not. Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ...
I see what you mean. I have the freedom to consider that he may or may not exist, but not everyone has that freedom. Some people feel they know he exists, and others feel they know he does not. Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ...
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 17 2009, 10:41 PM)
Then what does he trigger?
Mostly tiny electrical and chemical processes in peoples' brains I would guess...he and Satan both. But now that you mention it if he does influence the weather he probably does it by influencing the sun.
Mostly tiny electrical and chemical processes in peoples' brains I would guess...he and Satan both. But now that you mention it if he does influence the weather he probably does it by influencing the sun.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
What does he/she/it do that could not occur naturally?
I don't know. If he's part of "nature" then I guess nothing. What do humans do that could not occur naturally?
I see what you mean. I have the freedom to consider that he may or may not exist, but not everyone has that freedom. Some people feel they know he exists, and others feel they know he does not. Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ...
Yes, I would probably have to quite eating shrimp and pork chops, and definitly have to give up cheese burgers. I would starve.
I don't know. If he's part of "nature" then I guess nothing. What do humans do that could not occur naturally?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
Sounds like you're arguing your god into redundancy. Good tactic!
Things appear to be as they are whether he exists or not. If he does exist, why are things as they are? That's a question I'm able to ask and at least think about the answer to. Not everyone can do that apparently. In fact some people appear to think it's wrong to try. I don't.
Things appear to be as they are whether he exists or not. If he does exist, why are things as they are? That's a question I'm able to ask and at least think about the answer to. Not everyone can do that apparently. In fact some people appear to think it's wrong to try. I don't.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 07:14 PM)
I see what you mean. I have the freedom to consider that he may or may not exist, but not everyone has that freedom. Some people feel they know he exists, and others feel they know he does not. Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ... Yes, I would probably have to quite eating shrimp and pork chops, and definitly have to give up cheese burgers. I would starve.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 18 2009, 08:25 AM)
If God exists he must be an alien.
Though everyone appears to want to deny it, no one has been able to suggest how he could be anything else. That much is a fact, whether you've really come to accept it or not.
Though everyone appears to want to deny it, no one has been able to suggest how he could be anything else. That much is a fact, whether you've really come to accept it or not.
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
Unless rpenner bans him nopEda has you all in his hip pocket.
Kill the messenger. But why? Two possibilities seem most likely:
1. Because trying to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way works directly against the object of maintaing faith that he does not exist.
2. A number of the things that seem most realistic if he does exist, apparently conflict with what some people have grown comfortable believing about him, and/or would like to believe about him.
Either way it triggers cognitive dissonance which is very uncomfortable, and people want to eliminate that discomfort. But how Accept the conflicting information and change your way of thinking to include the new idea(s). No...we don't ever see much of that. In fact come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever seen it. And so it seems eventually I must get the ax 
. But on the more happy side , until that time comes people get to ridicule me and fun stuff like that, and I get to point it out and sometimes ridicule them for doing it.
I see what you mean. I have the freedom to consider that he may or may not exist, but not everyone has that freedom. Some people feel they know he exists, and others feel they know he does not. Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ...
And since he may not exist, that freedom may not have come from God.
Kill the messenger. But why? Two possibilities seem most likely:
1. Because trying to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way works directly against the object of maintaing faith that he does not exist.
2. A number of the things that seem most realistic if he does exist, apparently conflict with what some people have grown comfortable believing about him, and/or would like to believe about him.
Either way it triggers cognitive dissonance which is very uncomfortable, and people want to eliminate that discomfort. But how
Accept the conflicting information and change your way of thinking to include the new idea(s). No...we don't ever see much of that. In fact come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever seen it. And so it seems eventually I must get the ax . But on the more happy side , until that time comes people get to ridicule me and fun stuff like that, and I get to point it out and sometimes ridicule them for doing it.QUOTE (pnelson419+)
I might as well join the winning side of this argurment.
Whatever your feelings really are, so far no one else has even tried to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, and this is supposedly a PHYSICS related forum. What kind of example is that for the freshmen? When I was a freshman my biology instructor acted like evolution contradicts the idea of God and creation. Right from the start I thought that was an ignorant idea since if he does exist what evolution really does is give us a clue about how he did some things.
Whatever your feelings really are, so far no one else has even tried to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, and this is supposedly a PHYSICS related forum. What kind of example is that for the freshmen? When I was a freshman my biology instructor acted like evolution contradicts the idea of God and creation. Right from the start I thought that was an ignorant idea since if he does exist what evolution really does is give us a clue about how he did some things.
So since you claim God and Satan use the same communications channel -- it would be important to have some test to determine which messages to listen to.
Or you would wind up like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09..._alert_aler.php
Or this:
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...ok_at_abrah.php
Or like the many people who have completely ruined their reputation by posting anti-science nonsense here.
Or you would wind up like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09..._alert_aler.php
Or this:
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...ok_at_abrah.php
Or like the many people who have completely ruined their reputation by posting anti-science nonsense here.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 07:25 PM)
Whatever your feelings really are, so far no one else has even tried to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, and this is supposedly a PHYSICS related forum. What kind of example is that for the freshmen? When I was a freshman my biology instructor acted like evolution contradicts the idea of God and creation. Right from the start I thought that was an ignorant idea since if he does exist what evolution really does is give us a clue about how he did some things.
I don't see how an atheist can argue against your point.
How can they believe if God exists He could be anything but an alien.
I don't see how an atheist can argue against your point.
How can they believe if God exists He could be anything but an alien.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 11:14 PM)
I see what you mean. I have the freedom to consider that he may or may not exist, but not everyone has that freedom. Some people feel they know he exists, and others feel they know he does not. Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ... And since he may not exist, that freedom may not have come from God.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 20 2009, 11:40 PM)
So since you claim God and Satan use the same communications channel -- it would be important to have some test to determine which messages to listen to.
We have them if we learn where to look. The "Satanic Bible" is certainly a good example to me. If it's all true and Satan does exist, would it make sense that he would encourage people to believe he doesn't exist as a way of encouraging their damnation? Of course. It would be smartass, dishonest and insulting to his own "followers", so it makes perfect sense that's something he would be likely to do. In reality, that IS what the SB encourages, so what's the test and result? To me it's something like:
If it were all for real, is it likely things would be as they are?
The answer in this case is: Yes, very much so.
We have them if we learn where to look. The "Satanic Bible" is certainly a good example to me. If it's all true and Satan does exist, would it make sense that he would encourage people to believe he doesn't exist as a way of encouraging their damnation? Of course. It would be smartass, dishonest and insulting to his own "followers", so it makes perfect sense that's something he would be likely to do. In reality, that IS what the SB encourages, so what's the test and result? To me it's something like:
If it were all for real, is it likely things would be as they are?
The answer in this case is: Yes, very much so.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Or you would wind up like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09..._alert_aler.php
Or this:
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...ok_at_abrah.php
I've learned not to have the slightest bit of confidence in predictions about when the rapture or whatever is going to happen, regardless of how persuasive they may be. The second link didn't load up at all so I don't know what it is about.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09..._alert_aler.php
Or this:
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...ok_at_abrah.php
I've learned not to have the slightest bit of confidence in predictions about when the rapture or whatever is going to happen, regardless of how persuasive they may be. The second link didn't load up at all so I don't know what it is about.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Or like the many people who have completely ruined their reputation by posting anti-science nonsense here.
Every person who encourages faith in God's nonexistence--whether they deny that's what they're doing or not--is being unscientific imo, since no human has ever been in a position where they could get a realistic idea whether gods actually do exist or not. From the position the human race in general is in, I believe it's more than likely that gods do exist some places in the universe. Since that belief is based on things that have happened and are happening on this planet combined with appreciation for the number of star systems that exist, I believe it is in a way another test and result sort of situation.
Every person who encourages faith in God's nonexistence--whether they deny that's what they're doing or not--is being unscientific imo, since no human has ever been in a position where they could get a realistic idea whether gods actually do exist or not. From the position the human race in general is in, I believe it's more than likely that gods do exist some places in the universe. Since that belief is based on things that have happened and are happening on this planet combined with appreciation for the number of star systems that exist, I believe it is in a way another test and result sort of situation.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 21 2009, 12:09 AM)
I don't see how an atheist can argue against your point.
They can't. No one has been able to so far. I've been told I was wrong and an idiot etc by believers and disbelievers both, but as yet no one has been able to suggest exactly HOW I could be wrong.
They can't. No one has been able to so far. I've been told I was wrong and an idiot etc by believers and disbelievers both, but as yet no one has been able to suggest exactly HOW I could be wrong.
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
How can they believe if God exists He could be anything but an alien.
They can't think about the possibility of his existence in a realistic way at all. That means ANY attempt they possibly could make would work directly against what they have chosen to put their faith in. It appears they have successfully fooled some people into believing they are open minded, or basing their own faith on "knowledge", or whatever other completely unrealistic ideas they may have encouraged other people to develop about them. This particular case is an especially clear example:
IF they really were trying to think about the possibility realistically or scientifically then they would...well...actually TRY to do so. But do they? No. In fact they do the opposite. So why do they do the opposite of what it seems that they should want to do? Because it conflicts with what they WANT to believe...with what they have grown comfortable putting their faith in...they mentally can NOT. Don't let them fool you. They are in no way superior, and if anything they are inferior. They are the extreme of extremists, and whether God or gods exist or not they are NECESSARILY in the group of most clueless people on Earth about it. It really is the most pathetic position people can be in about the topic, so don't let them trick you into believing it's anything better than what it actually is.
They can't think about the possibility of his existence in a realistic way at all. That means ANY attempt they possibly could make would work directly against what they have chosen to put their faith in. It appears they have successfully fooled some people into believing they are open minded, or basing their own faith on "knowledge", or whatever other completely unrealistic ideas they may have encouraged other people to develop about them. This particular case is an especially clear example:
IF they really were trying to think about the possibility realistically or scientifically then they would...well...actually TRY to do so. But do they? No. In fact they do the opposite. So why do they do the opposite of what it seems that they should want to do? Because it conflicts with what they WANT to believe...with what they have grown comfortable putting their faith in...they mentally can NOT. Don't let them fool you. They are in no way superior, and if anything they are inferior. They are the extreme of extremists, and whether God or gods exist or not they are NECESSARILY in the group of most clueless people on Earth about it. It really is the most pathetic position people can be in about the topic, so don't let them trick you into believing it's anything better than what it actually is.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 21 2009, 12:55 AM)
since he may not exist, that freedom may not have come from God.
Agreed. If you can give me reason to put faith in that possibility then I guess I will, but since you can't I'm also guessing I won't .
Agreed. If you can give me reason to put faith in that possibility
then I guess I will, but since you can't I'm also guessing I won't .
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 21 2009, 12:16 PM)
They can't. No one has been able to so far. I've been told I was wrong and an idiot etc by believers and disbelievers both, but as yet no one has been able to suggest exactly HOW I could be wrong.
All you did is redefine god to be whatever fits your hypothesis. In other words, your god lacks all of the "powers" that 99% of believers assign to him. Your "god" is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. If you want to talk about a technologically advanced being that poses as a god, then OF COURSE that god is an alien.
All you did is redefine god to be whatever fits your hypothesis. In other words, your god lacks all of the "powers" that 99% of believers assign to him. Your "god" is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. If you want to talk about a technologically advanced being that poses as a god, then OF COURSE that god is an alien.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 20 2009, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action. If you can't understand how ...
...Yes, I would probably have to quite eating shrimp
Why shrimp?
Why shrimp?
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
and pork chops,
Why pork chops?
Why pork chops?
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
and definitly have to give up cheese burgers.
Why cheesed burgers???
Why cheesed burgers???
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
I would starve.
Why starve?????
Why starve?????
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Still, if he proved his existence and even more so if he enforced some of his rules we would have a lot less freedom of thought and action.
So he doesn't provide proof of his existence and then punishes us for not following his rules?? It doesn't make sense.
So he doesn't provide proof of his existence and then punishes us for not following his rules?? It doesn't make sense.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 21 2009, 04:22 PM)
Agreed. If you can give me reason to put faith in that possibility then I guess I will, but since you can't I'm also guessing I won't .
Right back atcha.
Give me a reason to put faith in the other possibility.
then I guess I will, but since you can't I'm also guessing I won't . Right back atcha.
Give me a reason to put faith in the other possibility.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 21 2009, 09:46 PM)
They can't. No one has been able to so far. I've been told I was wrong and an idiot etc by believers and disbelievers both, but as yet no one has been able to suggest exactly HOW I could be wrong.
We have. You are just too stupid to understand.
We have. You are just too stupid to understand.
QUOTE (nopEda 12:36 PM+)
Why shrimp?
Why pork chops?
Why cheesed burgers???
Why starve?????
You got banned after posting dietary law.
I was joking about starving, but as a junk food junky I may feel like I am.
Find out how many dietary laws a cheese burger breaks.
Why pork chops?
Why cheesed burgers???
Why starve?????
You got banned after posting dietary law.
I was joking about starving, but as a junk food junky I may feel like I am.
Find out how many dietary laws a cheese burger breaks.
What 'band' did he get, genius? 
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 21 2009, 07:11 PM)
What 'band' did he get, genius?
He got it on this third attempt
He got it on this third attempt
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Find out how many dietary laws a cheese burger breaks.
None, afawk. There are lots more quotes that say it's okay to eat meat than just the one I got killfiled for too...that was only one of many that I've posted many times in different groups. Here's a list of some places where the eating of meat is supported in the Bible:
Genesis 4:3-5
Genesis 9:3
Exodus 12:5-14
Leviticus 1:5-9
Leviticus 12:6-8
Deuteronomy 12:15
Deuteronomy 14:4-20
1 Kings 8:5, 8:63
Mark 7:18-19
Mark 14:12-14
Luke 2:22-24
Luke 24:42-43
Acts 10:13-15
Romans 14:2-6
1 Corinthians 10:25-26
Maybe I can get away with that
?
None, afawk. There are lots more quotes that say it's okay to eat meat than just the one I got killfiled for too...that was only one of many that I've posted many times in different groups. Here's a list of some places where the eating of meat is supported in the Bible:
Genesis 4:3-5
Genesis 9:3
Exodus 12:5-14
Leviticus 1:5-9
Leviticus 12:6-8
Deuteronomy 12:15
Deuteronomy 14:4-20
1 Kings 8:5, 8:63
Mark 7:18-19
Mark 14:12-14
Luke 2:22-24
Luke 24:42-43
Acts 10:13-15
Romans 14:2-6
1 Corinthians 10:25-26
Maybe I can get away with that
?
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I've been told I was wrong and an idiot etc by believers and disbelievers both, but as yet no one has been able to suggest exactly HOW I could be wrong.
We have. You are just too stupid to understand.
No you sure haven't . But here's a fun idea : Why don't you try explaining it NOW:
(prediction: no can do)
No you sure haven't
. But here's a fun idea : Why don't you try explaining it NOW: (prediction: no can do)
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 24 2009, 11:19 PM)
We have. You are just too stupid to understand.[/QUOTE]
No you sure haven't . But here's a fun idea : Why don't you try explaining it NOW:
(prediction: no can do)
Okay here's one:
No you sure haven't
. But here's a fun idea : Why don't you try explaining it NOW: (prediction: no can do)
Okay here's one:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Not true because god is imaginary. Anyone can assign him any attribute, such as multiple heads/limbs, omnipotence, ability to throw lightning, grant your wishes, create the universe ....anything you can imagine.
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Not true because god is imaginary. Anyone can assign him any attribute, such as multiple heads/limbs, omnipotence, ability to throw lightning, grant your wishes, create the universe ....anything you can imagine.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 24 2009, 12:42 PM)
None, afawk.
Wrong:
Wrong:
QUOTE (Wikianswers+)
Foods that are neither meat (defined as the flesh of any animal other than fish) nor dairy are called pareve (also "parevine") in Judaism. This means that they contain absolutely no meat or dairy derivatives, have not been cooked or mixed with any meat or dairy foods, and were not prepared using instuments that had been used to prepare meat or dairy foods. The reason behind needing to know if foods are pareve or not is that Jewish law prohibits mixing meat and milk. Pareve foods can be eaten together with either meat or dairy foods.
My bold, your bad...
My bold, your bad...
QUOTE (pnelson+)
Find out how many dietary laws a cheese burger breaks.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
None, afawk.
QUOTE (Granouille+)
Wrong:
Foods that are neither meat (defined as the flesh of any animal other than fish) nor dairy are called pareve (also "parevine") in Judaism. This means that they contain absolutely no meat or dairy derivatives, have not been cooked or mixed with any meat or dairy foods, and were not prepared using instuments that had been used to prepare meat or dairy foods. The reason behind needing to know if foods are pareve or not is that Jewish law prohibits mixing meat and milk. Pareve foods can be eaten together with either meat or dairy foods.
My bold, your bad...
nopEda: You're not really "wrong" or "bad". Rabbis have given a ridiculously broad interpretation to a passage of scripture that appears three times in the Old Testament which says:
"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." (Exodus 23:19, see also Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21)
A few years ago, I was set up as a vendor in a Mall for two months and 3 young Jews were set up on the cart next to mine. Even though I'm an anti-Semite (in the deluded minds of some forum members, that is), we became very good friends during our two months spent together. Well, one day I had a cheeseburger for lunch...they almost had a cow. The three of them couldn't contain themselves and they pleaded with me, in sincerity, not to eat meat and dairy together, insisting that it was forbidden by the God of the Bible (they knew that I was a Christian). Since I had a Bible handy, I read them the following:
"And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." (Genesis 18:1-8)
If you continue reading the account, then it becomes quite apparent that these "three men" are the LORD and two angels. Abraham set before them butter, milk and the calf which he had dressed...AND THEY DID EAT. Well, my newfound Jewish friends were quite surprised to see that this existed in their scriptures and assured me that they would question their Rabbi about it when they returned to Israel. Anyhow, for whatever that's worth. Take care.
QUOTE (Wikianswers+)
Foods that are neither meat (defined as the flesh of any animal other than fish) nor dairy are called pareve (also "parevine") in Judaism. This means that they contain absolutely no meat or dairy derivatives, have not been cooked or mixed with any meat or dairy foods, and were not prepared using instuments that had been used to prepare meat or dairy foods. The reason behind needing to know if foods are pareve or not is that Jewish law prohibits mixing meat and milk. Pareve foods can be eaten together with either meat or dairy foods.
My bold, your bad...
nopEda: You're not really "wrong" or "bad". Rabbis have given a ridiculously broad interpretation to a passage of scripture that appears three times in the Old Testament which says:
"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." (Exodus 23:19, see also Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21)
A few years ago, I was set up as a vendor in a Mall for two months and 3 young Jews were set up on the cart next to mine. Even though I'm an anti-Semite (in the deluded minds of some forum members, that is), we became very good friends during our two months spent together. Well, one day I had a cheeseburger for lunch...they almost had a cow. The three of them couldn't contain themselves and they pleaded with me, in sincerity, not to eat meat and dairy together, insisting that it was forbidden by the God of the Bible (they knew that I was a Christian). Since I had a Bible handy, I read them the following:
"And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." (Genesis 18:1-8)
If you continue reading the account, then it becomes quite apparent that these "three men" are the LORD and two angels. Abraham set before them butter, milk and the calf which he had dressed...AND THEY DID EAT. Well, my newfound Jewish friends were quite surprised to see that this existed in their scriptures and assured me that they would question their Rabbi about it when they returned to Israel. Anyhow, for whatever that's worth. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 25 2009, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (Granouille+)
My bold, your bad...
nopEda: You're not really "wrong" or "bad".
You know damned well it is meant as a colloquialism, and even the least capable of our American English speakers on this board probably know that, too.
Nothing like an excuse to proselytize.
Take care, DUDE.
nopEda: You're not really "wrong" or "bad".
You know damned well it is meant as a colloquialism, and even the least capable of our American English speakers on this board probably know that, too.
Nothing like an excuse to proselytize.
Take care, DUDE.
Hey, "Reverend Jim" is back. You seem a little tense... What's the matter? Getting tired of waiting for the Halle Bopp comet? Oh, wait...that was the other cult leader...sometimes I get you guys confused. Anyhow, try not to burst an artery or anything...I was merely addressing the issue of dietary laws as described in the Bible. The world doesn't really revolve around you...nor was my post addressed to you. Take care, won't you? Don't forget to polish your sunglasses...Sunday's just around the corner.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 24 2009, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
No you sure haven't . But here's a fun idea : Why don't you try explaining it NOW:
(prediction: no can do)
Okay here's one:
. But here's a fun idea : Why don't you try explaining it NOW: (prediction: no can do)
Okay here's one:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Not true because god is imaginary. Anyone can assign him any attribute, such as multiple heads/limbs, omnipotence, ability to throw lightning, grant your wishes, create the universe ....anything you can imagine.
That wouldn't apply to the situation I originally referred to since "if there is a creator associated with this planet" then he would not be imaginary, but people can believe whatever they want to about him whether he exists or not apparently.
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Not true because god is imaginary. Anyone can assign him any attribute, such as multiple heads/limbs, omnipotence, ability to throw lightning, grant your wishes, create the universe ....anything you can imagine.
That wouldn't apply to the situation I originally referred to since "if there is a creator associated with this planet" then he would not be imaginary, but people can believe whatever they want to about him whether he exists or not apparently.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 26 2009, 12:22 AM)
nopEda: You're not really "wrong" or "bad". Rabbis have given a ridiculously broad interpretation to a passage of scripture that appears three times in the Old Testament which says:
"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." (Exodus 23:19, see also Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21)
Some people apparently want to make more out of it than there is to it. It doesn't even say not to cook a kid in milk...it says not to cook one in its MOTHER'S milk. That has nothing to do with eating cheese on beef, even if the cheese was made from the dead animal's mother's milk.
"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." (Exodus 23:19, see also Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21)
Some people apparently want to make more out of it than there is to it. It doesn't even say not to cook a kid in milk...it says not to cook one in its MOTHER'S milk. That has nothing to do with eating cheese on beef, even if the cheese was made from the dead animal's mother's milk.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 27 2009, 02:24 PM)
That wouldn't apply to the situation I originally referred to since "if there is a creator associated with this planet" then he would not be imaginary, but people can believe whatever they want to about him whether he exists or not apparently.
"Creator" implies supernatural abilities. You have assigned your own arbitrary abilities to your imaginary god. Congratulations on your originality.
"Creator" implies supernatural abilities. You have assigned your own arbitrary abilities to your imaginary god. Congratulations on your originality.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 27 2009, 11:54 PM)
That wouldn't apply to the situation I originally referred to since "if there is a creator associated with this planet" then he would not be imaginary, but people can believe whatever they want to about him whether he exists or not apparently.
Yes.
Yes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
They can't. No one has been able to so far. I've been told I was wrong and an idiot etc by believers and disbelievers both, but as yet no one has been able to suggest exactly HOW I could be wrong.
All you did is redefine god to be whatever fits your hypothesis. In other words, your god lacks all of the "powers" that 99% of believers assign to him. Your "god" is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. If you want to talk about a technologically advanced being that poses as a god, then OF COURSE that god is an alien.
As yet no one has been able to explain HOW they think God could possibly be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years . In order to even suggest how I could possibly be wrong you MUST explain how he could be what I described but so far none of you have been able to make any attempt to explain, meaning that all evidence so far indicates I am correct.
Easy.
You assume that power is the same as technology or that you need technology to be powerful. This is an unproven axiom at best. If a God exists he could very well be omnipotent or at least far more potent than we are, based simply on having inherent power... rather than having to develop it technologically.
All you did is redefine god to be whatever fits your hypothesis. In other words, your god lacks all of the "powers" that 99% of believers assign to him. Your "god" is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. If you want to talk about a technologically advanced being that poses as a god, then OF COURSE that god is an alien.
As yet no one has been able to explain HOW they think God could possibly be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years . In order to even suggest how I could possibly be wrong you MUST explain how he could be what I described but so far none of you have been able to make any attempt to explain, meaning that all evidence so far indicates I am correct.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 27 2009, 02:36 PM)
As yet no one has been able to explain HOW they think God could possibly be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years . In order to even suggest how I could possibly be wrong you MUST explain how he could be what I described but so far none of you have been able to make any attempt to explain, meaning that all evidence so far indicates I am correct.
Aside from the repeated and obvious straw man argument, you are still missing the point.
If I were to defend the Christian POV, I would say that god exists outside of our universe, and has the power to create and destroy universes. Thus, god created Earth within our universe to experiment with the creation of sentient beings like himself. Thus, god is not a being from our universe, and could not be a native nor an alien.
native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years . In order to even suggest how I could possibly be wrong you MUST explain how he could be what I described but so far none of you have been able to make any attempt to explain, meaning that all evidence so far indicates I am correct. Aside from the repeated and obvious straw man argument, you are still missing the point.
If I were to defend the Christian POV, I would say that god exists outside of our universe, and has the power to create and destroy universes. Thus, god created Earth within our universe to experiment with the creation of sentient beings like himself. Thus, god is not a being from our universe, and could not be a native nor an alien.
QUOTE
As yet no one has been able to explain HOW they think God could possibly be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior huh.gif native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years dry.gif
Easy.
You assume that power is the same as technology or that you need technology to be powerful. This is an unproven axiom at best. If a God exists he could very well be omnipotent or at least far more potent than we are, based simply on having inherent power... rather than having to develop it technologically.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 06:42 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
As yet no one has been able to explain HOW they think God could possibly be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years . In order to even suggest how I could possibly be wrong you MUST explain how he could be what I described but so far none of you have been able to make any attempt to explain, meaning that all evidence so far indicates I am correct.
Aside from the repeated and obvious straw man argument, you are still missing the point.
If I were to defend the Christian POV, I would say that god exists outside of our universe, and has the power to create and destroy universes. Thus, god created Earth within our universe to experiment with the creation of sentient beings like himself. Thus, god is not a being from our universe, and could not be a native nor an alien.
Since he would not be from this planet, he would necessarily be an alien. Why do you so very badly want him not to be what he almost certainly would be?
native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years . In order to even suggest how I could possibly be wrong you MUST explain how he could be what I described but so far none of you have been able to make any attempt to explain, meaning that all evidence so far indicates I am correct.Aside from the repeated and obvious straw man argument, you are still missing the point.
If I were to defend the Christian POV, I would say that god exists outside of our universe, and has the power to create and destroy universes. Thus, god created Earth within our universe to experiment with the creation of sentient beings like himself. Thus, god is not a being from our universe, and could not be a native nor an alien.
Since he would not be from this planet, he would necessarily be an alien. Why do you so very badly want him not to be what he almost certainly would be?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.