Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards, the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...
Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.
By the same token, no one would deny that a staple-nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk-was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.
What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think? www.allahexists.com
Both Mohamed and Jesus have done more to ruin our lives than any other two people in history.
No one believes people exist due to chance.
Evolution is not based on random chance.
According to the theory of evolution, life exists because it is capable of existing.
It is a simple, yet remarkable algorithm for the existence and continuation of life.
No one believes people exist due to chance.
Evolution is not based on random chance.
According to the theory of evolution, life exists because it is capable of existing.
It is a simple, yet remarkable algorithm for the existence and continuation of life.
Biologist. A tree is evidence that a tree exists. Not evidence for the totally impossible. If we had flying pink elephants that would be unnatural so possible evidence that it was created deliberately.
There is not the slightest evidence that allah exists. I can insult allah and a muslim would attack me over it because he/she knows that allah does not exist so cannot punish me in any way. There is no evidence that Mohammad existed.
The quran is just a mixture of other holy books notably the JEWISH old testament and the JEWISH inspired new testament. It has no hidden knowledge in it and could have been written by a shephard of the time.
Why are you here anyway? The quran states that all non-muslims are ugly, ignorant and perverted and that you should not talk to them but make war on them otherwise you too will go to hell and burn forever:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/index.htm
There is not the slightest evidence that allah exists. I can insult allah and a muslim would attack me over it because he/she knows that allah does not exist so cannot punish me in any way. There is no evidence that Mohammad existed.
The quran is just a mixture of other holy books notably the JEWISH old testament and the JEWISH inspired new testament. It has no hidden knowledge in it and could have been written by a shephard of the time.
Why are you here anyway? The quran states that all non-muslims are ugly, ignorant and perverted and that you should not talk to them but make war on them otherwise you too will go to hell and burn forever:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/index.htm
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 23 2007, 07:13 AM)
If we had flying pink elephants that would be unnatural so possible evidence that it was created deliberately.
Actually, if we had pink flying elephants there would be a great deal of study going into proving that they are natural - after all, if we grew up in a world with pink flying elephants, we'd think they were normal. If they violated our laws of physics as we know them today, we'd figure out why and extend out laws. You counterargument is flawed because you assume that you'd BELIEVE that pink flying elephants were unnatural, *if they were normal*.
Actually, if we had pink flying elephants there would be a great deal of study going into proving that they are natural - after all, if we grew up in a world with pink flying elephants, we'd think they were normal. If they violated our laws of physics as we know them today, we'd figure out why and extend out laws. You counterargument is flawed because you assume that you'd BELIEVE that pink flying elephants were unnatural, *if they were normal*.
This is just the typical "Things exist, what made them? Let's call it God!" argument. Obviously things exist so you ask the question "How did they come to exist?" At present this is a bit of a stumbling block for science and so religious proponents chime in with "Call whatever made things 'The Creator' and call him God.".
The problem with this is two fold. 'The Creator' is anthropomorphic. It implies an intelligence, a personality, a being who while doesn't have a physical body like us, certainly seems to have some of our personality traints. Why must 'the creator' be an intelligence and not a completly benign process without thought or design?
Secondly, saying "Call him God" not only turns this 'entity' into a thinking, feeling mind in the sky, it also attaches all the baggage human religion carries with it. Why exactly must the fact things exist imply a monothesistic Abrahamic God? Errr.... no reason! But by (often slyly) just changing the label of what created the universe from "The thing or process which created our universe" (after all, it's a bit of a mouthful) to "The creator" to "God", a process many people don't have a problem with, you suddenly have arrived, via (pseudo)logic at the fact an Abrahamic God exists and all the stuff which Christianity, Judaism and Islam carry with them.
Instead, it's nothing more than a slight of hand to slide in the notion that something which creates must have anthropomorphic natures, that it's intelligent and implies intent.
Heck, the arguement is even more insidious than that, it always requires a 'First Cause'. Whose to say it's not an infinite regression? That our universe is just the latest in an infinitely long line of universes, no initial creator, no intent required?
And why exactly is God allowed to not have a previous cause but the universe isn't? It's okay for God to have always existed, but the notion of some kind of existence always existing without a God is not. Sorry, that's not good logic either.
So while you might stumble around your room in the morning looking for your slippers and wishing you'd got another hour in bed, simply the fact you've surrounded yourself with creature comforts in our consumer drivin society neither implies there is an Abrahamic God looking down on us, deeply interested whenever we sin or repent, nor does it imply there is any kind of intelligence or intent behind existence either.
The problem with this is two fold. 'The Creator' is anthropomorphic. It implies an intelligence, a personality, a being who while doesn't have a physical body like us, certainly seems to have some of our personality traints. Why must 'the creator' be an intelligence and not a completly benign process without thought or design?
Secondly, saying "Call him God" not only turns this 'entity' into a thinking, feeling mind in the sky, it also attaches all the baggage human religion carries with it. Why exactly must the fact things exist imply a monothesistic Abrahamic God? Errr.... no reason! But by (often slyly) just changing the label of what created the universe from "The thing or process which created our universe" (after all, it's a bit of a mouthful) to "The creator" to "God", a process many people don't have a problem with, you suddenly have arrived, via (pseudo)logic at the fact an Abrahamic God exists and all the stuff which Christianity, Judaism and Islam carry with them.
Instead, it's nothing more than a slight of hand to slide in the notion that something which creates must have anthropomorphic natures, that it's intelligent and implies intent.
Heck, the arguement is even more insidious than that, it always requires a 'First Cause'. Whose to say it's not an infinite regression? That our universe is just the latest in an infinitely long line of universes, no initial creator, no intent required?
And why exactly is God allowed to not have a previous cause but the universe isn't? It's okay for God to have always existed, but the notion of some kind of existence always existing without a God is not. Sorry, that's not good logic either.
So while you might stumble around your room in the morning looking for your slippers and wishing you'd got another hour in bed, simply the fact you've surrounded yourself with creature comforts in our consumer drivin society neither implies there is an Abrahamic God looking down on us, deeply interested whenever we sin or repent, nor does it imply there is any kind of intelligence or intent behind existence either.
Biologist - Your playing a game. Its called God Of Gaps, everywhere there's a logical gap you put God, until we shine a light on the gap in question, and TaDa! The gap disappears with your God 20 feet down to the next gap. And of course God stays in that gap until we get their with the light to show you once more that there was never actually anything there in the first place, no God, no Gap, Just delusional hope coming from some dude who doesn't like reality.
QUOTE
Could their existence be by chance, do you think? www.allahexists.com
Has dad1 converted? Same lunacy, different login, different deity.
Physfan
There has been nothing posted here about singular or plural evidences of the existence of God. And THERE NEVER WILL BE! He is a construct of the human mind, I should say SOME human minds. I went to the web site in the post by Biologist and found the usual denial of the fossil record based on false assumptions any high school educated kid should be able to refute. It discussed the finding of a living missing link as a refutation of all evolutionary thought. What BS! The finding of the Ginkgo or the Coelacanth only bolsters the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Sharks have been called "living fossils" for a long time. The discovery of new, or living links proves that they are adapted to their niche and that the niche hasn't changed appreciably either. Where is the evidence for God's existence? Or for any of the other 5,000+ religions, cults, myths and their deities or idols? I can wait a lifetime, but no more, since I don't believe in reincarnation! 
sojourner. A flying elephant is impossible in that it would need impossibly huge wings, impossibly powerful muscles to flap them and a body system that can supply sufficient energy without a quick build up of waste materials to cause fatigue (as in birds). The leg bones would have to be far stronger for landing too as even falling over can break elephant's (relatively) fragile bones.
If a normal (but pink) elephant could fly safely without these changes, it would be against everything we know and we would have to accept that some kind of supernatural explanation was the only possibility, like a god.
If a normal (but pink) elephant could fly safely without these changes, it would be against everything we know and we would have to accept that some kind of supernatural explanation was the only possibility, like a god.
i have a question.our body is made up of lifeless atoms but what gives us life?
abduljakul. There are intelligent computer programmes which you can talk to and not realise that there is not a human being on the other end. They can evolve and grow better too. They are not alive.
The human brain (and body) is just the same on a far greater scale. We are countless billions of "huge" organic molecules reacting with each other, some chemically, some electrically. If you examine a human on a small enough scale, they are not alive. It is only the complexity and our familiarity with the systems that we recognise as life.
Maybe a dozen different groups are working to make life from inanimate material in a lab and expect results within 10-20 years. One basic problem is what exactly is life? It is very difficult to define exactly.
The human brain (and body) is just the same on a far greater scale. We are countless billions of "huge" organic molecules reacting with each other, some chemically, some electrically. If you examine a human on a small enough scale, they are not alive. It is only the complexity and our familiarity with the systems that we recognise as life.
Maybe a dozen different groups are working to make life from inanimate material in a lab and expect results within 10-20 years. One basic problem is what exactly is life? It is very difficult to define exactly.
"The human brain (and body) is just the same on a far greater scale. We are countless billions of "huge" organic molecules reacting with each other, some chemically, some electrically."
atoms have no life much less intelligence to stick together and form a brain,eyes,nose,ears,tongue,hair,heart,liver,etc.etc.. in a living body.that means SOMEONE made them stick together to form a body and gave that body life,intelligence and emotions.
atoms have no life much less intelligence to stick together and form a brain,eyes,nose,ears,tongue,hair,heart,liver,etc.etc.. in a living body.that means SOMEONE made them stick together to form a body and gave that body life,intelligence and emotions.
QUOTE
brain,eyes,nose,ears,tongue,hair,heart,liver,etc.etc.. in a living body.that means SOMEONE made them stick together to form a body and gave that body life,intelligence and emotions.
That is a huge leap of logic.....
Computers are simply made of atoms, yet they are capable of performing highly complex tasks
but...here in lies the rub....
You claim that because we are greater than the sum of our parts, we must be special.
However, do you believe that animals have a soul?
Bacteria?
Plants?
They are all more than the sum of their parts....so are they "special"...and do they possess a soul?
abduljakul, Evolution explains what it is you seek. No need for "supernatural" beings, gods, deities or idols. What we can't currently explain doesn't require a God, just an inquisitive mind and some science. The difference between globigerina ooze (on wikipedia), self-replicating systems, unicellular organisms and viruses is not a very large stretch. "What is Life" is a nice philosophical topic and a George Harrison song, but organic chemistry adequately explains the development and evolution of living systems. Was a god necessary to explain Foraminifera hundreds of millions of years before multicellular life evolved? No. There is a steady, progressive growth in complexity and organization of lifeforms in the fossil record and currently living species to show unequivocally that evolution PERFECTLY explains all life as we know it. Where in that web of life is there a need for a god? Humans are proven to be not very different from our simian ancestors, genetically, behaviorally, and structurally. On this entire thread and everywhere else in the world, there has never been any conclusive evidences for the existence of God, just wild speculation on the part of mankind.
People think that if there is no God and thus no "heaven" then their lives are pointless. Not everyone has reached the level of actualization that allows the concept of there being no personal God to be accepted.
QUOTE (abduljakul+Jan 25 2007, 10:53 PM)
"The human brain (and body) is just the same on a far greater scale. We are countless billions of "huge" organic molecules reacting with each other, some chemically, some electrically."
atoms have no life much less intelligence to stick together and form a brain,eyes,nose,ears,tongue,hair,heart,liver,etc.etc.. in a living body.that means SOMEONE made them stick together to form a body and gave that body life,intelligence and emotions.
Why do you bother asking if you don't even listen to the answer? Evolution answers your question by showing our development was a slow, gradual process, not a "Stick together eyes, nose, liver, heart and you've got a person" process like you see it as.
atoms have no life much less intelligence to stick together and form a brain,eyes,nose,ears,tongue,hair,heart,liver,etc.etc.. in a living body.that means SOMEONE made them stick together to form a body and gave that body life,intelligence and emotions.
Why do you bother asking if you don't even listen to the answer? Evolution answers your question by showing our development was a slow, gradual process, not a "Stick together eyes, nose, liver, heart and you've got a person" process like you see it as.
abduljakul. To make DNA or RNA it takes just FOUR different molecules. A computer simulation showed that an eye could develop from light sensitive tissue in just 250,000 years! Using a programme to build a sentence from 26 letters and spaces, it took 47 tries to build one. Not trillions as creationists rant. All that is needed is that it builds on what has gone before. Nature is just the very small on a very large scale.
A computer which can do incredibly intricate things is based on the binary code. Just two numbers: 0 and 1.
When computers first came out I did a little programming. If A happens, then do B or C. As computers got more intricate, it was if A happens, then do B and if C happens, do D, and if E happens do F and if G happens do H, etc. That is what we are on a far more complex scale. As intelligence advances from lower to higher animals to Man, we have more alternatives and a better memory. That is all the brain is, and we now have found love, hate conscience, etc in the human brain by looking at what areas light up when someone thinks a set emotion or by studying damage to the brain.
A computer which can do incredibly intricate things is based on the binary code. Just two numbers: 0 and 1.
When computers first came out I did a little programming. If A happens, then do B or C. As computers got more intricate, it was if A happens, then do B and if C happens, do D, and if E happens do F and if G happens do H, etc. That is what we are on a far more complex scale. As intelligence advances from lower to higher animals to Man, we have more alternatives and a better memory. That is all the brain is, and we now have found love, hate conscience, etc in the human brain by looking at what areas light up when someone thinks a set emotion or by studying damage to the brain.
Kaneda; (from PhysOrg.com forums)
I don't doubt there is some form of intelligence within your neurons, as I can see, out of 10 threads, you posted in 8 of them with your neurons.
To put the cart before the horse, you provided a link to the Mars/Earth connection conspiracies.
You can tell people that those funny looking hills on mars look like a face, and make a movie or write a book about it, and people suck it up.
I come along, revealing great secrets in time combined with research of Atlanteans, who I am also born of, with provenance of revealing a nearly 3000 year old Secret of Herodotus and Hesiod for all to witness beyond any doubt, that no human has done, and to witness, natural images of the hand of our Father Creator, removing Adam's Rib, which revealed the image of the Secret of Creation in The Garden of Eden in Tanzania, Africa, with My Face upon the babe in the Garden from a Google Earth Satellite photo 7000 miles away from where I type....
and for all to witness for themselves if they know how to use Google Earth.
http://www.mts.net/~perasa1/The%20Garden%2...0in%20Avila.htm
And No one believes my face or images and signs of God on Earth, but they'll believe a face on mars.
Salt is an Electrolyte.
You see Kaneda, if they were to make a movie of these words, the start of the movie would say.......
..................Based on A True Story.
http://www.mts.net/~perasa1/
There is no tricks of the eye, for the eye is dotted.
I don't doubt there is some form of intelligence within your neurons, as I can see, out of 10 threads, you posted in 8 of them with your neurons.
To put the cart before the horse, you provided a link to the Mars/Earth connection conspiracies.
You can tell people that those funny looking hills on mars look like a face, and make a movie or write a book about it, and people suck it up.
I come along, revealing great secrets in time combined with research of Atlanteans, who I am also born of, with provenance of revealing a nearly 3000 year old Secret of Herodotus and Hesiod for all to witness beyond any doubt, that no human has done, and to witness, natural images of the hand of our Father Creator, removing Adam's Rib, which revealed the image of the Secret of Creation in The Garden of Eden in Tanzania, Africa, with My Face upon the babe in the Garden from a Google Earth Satellite photo 7000 miles away from where I type....
and for all to witness for themselves if they know how to use Google Earth.
http://www.mts.net/~perasa1/The%20Garden%2...0in%20Avila.htm
And No one believes my face or images and signs of God on Earth, but they'll believe a face on mars.
Salt is an Electrolyte.
You see Kaneda, if they were to make a movie of these words, the start of the movie would say.......
..................Based on A True Story.
http://www.mts.net/~perasa1/
There is no tricks of the eye, for the eye is dotted.
"A computer simulation showed that an eye could develop from light sensitive tissue in just 250,000 years!"
yes intelligent little balls stuck together and developed the eyes,the brain,lungs,ears,nose,the skeleton,etc.etc lol.by the way kaneda since atoms have no life(they're just the lego blocks of our body) what gives our body life?certainly not our brain because some species have no brain yet they have life.
yes intelligent little balls stuck together and developed the eyes,the brain,lungs,ears,nose,the skeleton,etc.etc lol.by the way kaneda since atoms have no life(they're just the lego blocks of our body) what gives our body life?certainly not our brain because some species have no brain yet they have life.
Paulo Riven. I just posted ideas from fellow nuts. I thought you'd like the company. The face on Mars when viewed from another angle (than from above) vanished. Like your pictures, it's just the mind joining up the dots.
The truth is that you are just another nobody (like the rest of us) who uses conspiracy theories to try and make out that you are somehow special. Your truth is like dad1's truth. In your mind only.
The truth is that you are just another nobody (like the rest of us) who uses conspiracy theories to try and make out that you are somehow special. Your truth is like dad1's truth. In your mind only.
abduljakul. Evolution shows us how over billions of years that species ranged from the very simple to the intricate. Things happened a bit at a time rather than the pieces being made seperately then put together as you seem to think (some creationist sites really are total crap). The appearance of the backbone half a billion years ago was a great leap forward allowing for fish, lizards and land animals. When the dinosaurs died out, mammals (which lead to Man) survived because they were very small and could eat anything. Only 5-6 million years ago, a tree dweller came down to live on the plains which allowed Man to evolve. It is all there if you care to read it rather than the book of lies and cretinist sites.
We are just endless small reactions and counter reactions. As I said, if you go down small enough, there is no life. Just these chemical and electrical reactions. There is no mythical "life force".
Even amoebas have "brains" in the form of micro and macro nucleuses which conbtrol them. Ants have about 128k of brain power and can make no decisions but react in set ways to set stimuli. As I pointed out before, because we are far more complicated, we have far more choices, but they are all based on what we know. You are not going to suddenly be a concert pianist if you have never played a piano before.
Explain how a computer can work because it too is made of lifeless atoms?
We are just endless small reactions and counter reactions. As I said, if you go down small enough, there is no life. Just these chemical and electrical reactions. There is no mythical "life force".
Even amoebas have "brains" in the form of micro and macro nucleuses which conbtrol them. Ants have about 128k of brain power and can make no decisions but react in set ways to set stimuli. As I pointed out before, because we are far more complicated, we have far more choices, but they are all based on what we know. You are not going to suddenly be a concert pianist if you have never played a piano before.
Explain how a computer can work because it too is made of lifeless atoms?
QUOTE
Explain how a computer can work because it too is made of lifeless atoms?
Because it was created, as were we...
DuzmA hit on an excellent point, my favorite psychology theorist Abraham Maslow.
"People think that if there is no God and thus no "heaven" then their lives are pointless. Not everyone has reached the level of actualization that allows the concept of there being no personal God to be accepted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maslow&...hy_of_needs.png This link will bring up his pyramid of hierarchies with basic "physiological" and survival needs filling the base level, then on to a level called "safety" or security of the family. employment, morals, etc. As these levels are attained, people can move on to higher needs and goals like "love/ belonging", then to "esteem" which includes achievement, respect of others and respect by others. Then, when all of these levels are attained, the highest pinnacle can be reached, self-actualization, which includes the lofty consummations of creativity, spontaneity, morality, lack of prejudice AND ACCEPTANCE OF FACTS! It is this last point, from arriving at true self-actualization, that allows the acceptance of evolution and the discernment to reject religions, AND DO IT WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, CONFIDENT THAT YOUR MORALS STILL STAND. Maslow's hierarchy is the best and clearest general explanation of man's state of mind and how it relates to the world, other people and even animals. Animals, mainly mammals, attain the physiological level, can, at times reach the safety level and even reach the love/belonging stage. A statement could be made that a silver back gorilla or respected chimpanzee matriarch actually reach the esteem level. But man seems to be the sole occupier of self-actualization and, of course, not all people can achieve it. Those that do can comfortably reply that there are no evidences for the existence of God. See the wikipedia article on Abraham Maslow and I wish to give my thanks to DuzmA for bringing self-actualization to the topic.
"People think that if there is no God and thus no "heaven" then their lives are pointless. Not everyone has reached the level of actualization that allows the concept of there being no personal God to be accepted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maslow&...hy_of_needs.png This link will bring up his pyramid of hierarchies with basic "physiological" and survival needs filling the base level, then on to a level called "safety" or security of the family. employment, morals, etc. As these levels are attained, people can move on to higher needs and goals like "love/ belonging", then to "esteem" which includes achievement, respect of others and respect by others. Then, when all of these levels are attained, the highest pinnacle can be reached, self-actualization, which includes the lofty consummations of creativity, spontaneity, morality, lack of prejudice AND ACCEPTANCE OF FACTS! It is this last point, from arriving at true self-actualization, that allows the acceptance of evolution and the discernment to reject religions, AND DO IT WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, CONFIDENT THAT YOUR MORALS STILL STAND. Maslow's hierarchy is the best and clearest general explanation of man's state of mind and how it relates to the world, other people and even animals. Animals, mainly mammals, attain the physiological level, can, at times reach the safety level and even reach the love/belonging stage. A statement could be made that a silver back gorilla or respected chimpanzee matriarch actually reach the esteem level. But man seems to be the sole occupier of self-actualization and, of course, not all people can achieve it. Those that do can comfortably reply that there are no evidences for the existence of God. See the wikipedia article on Abraham Maslow and I wish to give my thanks to DuzmA for bringing self-actualization to the topic.
"We are just endless small reactions and counter reactions. As I said, if you go down small enough, there is no life. Just these chemical and electrical reactions. There is no mythical "life force"."
lol the computer we're using should have life too because it's made of atoms with chemical and electrical reactions.
lol the computer we're using should have life too because it's made of atoms with chemical and electrical reactions.
QUOTE (bee+Jan 27 2007, 05:47 PM)
Because it was created, as were we...
So you believe Man can create life too?
So you believe Man can create life too?
QUOTE (abduljakul+Jan 27 2007, 11:12 PM)
lol the computer we're using should have life too because it's made of atoms with chemical and electrical reactions.
What exactly is life?
A computer can learn, can come to decisions, can communicate with others of it's kind as well as us, can speak, can see, can move, can even make copies of itself or part of itself.
Why is a computer not alive?
What exactly is life?
A computer can learn, can come to decisions, can communicate with others of it's kind as well as us, can speak, can see, can move, can even make copies of itself or part of itself.
Why is a computer not alive?
i believe that live in a symbolic world in deepth dyalethics with the real world
that symbolic world represent the desire to seek the imaginary;in that contradiction
the symbolic is congruent with the mythics,where does appear GOD,as the final form of sublimations of real worlds(that is the of the instincts and unconscious desire,that reflect our desire of exist ,to that?),through of the sciences and atrs and destroy the mythological universal and the archetypal structures that becomes
our "ego" aprisioned in the structures and forms of universal symbolism worlds
that the human ego want if ultrapasse and vanish in the imaginary world,that
represent in the absolute desires of win the real and symbolic worlds,it is,the chain
of the id,of the ego and superego vanish,and encounter that the religions seek in the death,and necessity of of "religare" with it creator...manifestations strong of
imaginary world.lacan encounted part of these thoughts in hegel,harbart,schelling
and obviously freud.
that symbolic world represent the desire to seek the imaginary;in that contradiction
the symbolic is congruent with the mythics,where does appear GOD,as the final form of sublimations of real worlds(that is the of the instincts and unconscious desire,that reflect our desire of exist ,to that?),through of the sciences and atrs and destroy the mythological universal and the archetypal structures that becomes
our "ego" aprisioned in the structures and forms of universal symbolism worlds
that the human ego want if ultrapasse and vanish in the imaginary world,that
represent in the absolute desires of win the real and symbolic worlds,it is,the chain
of the id,of the ego and superego vanish,and encounter that the religions seek in the death,and necessity of of "religare" with it creator...manifestations strong of
imaginary world.lacan encounted part of these thoughts in hegel,harbart,schelling
and obviously freud.
Wow! And I thought dud1 never made any sense. Then along comes mott.carl! Is there anyone that can clarify what "deepth dyalethics" is?
"through of the sciences and atrs and destroy the mythological universal and the archetypal structures that becomes our "ego" aprisioned in the structures and forms of universal symbolism worlds that the human ego want if ultrapasse and vanish in the imaginary world" mott.carl.
mott.carl, Care to explain that? Can you string more than three words together into a coherent sentence? Can you use punctuation effectively? Does whatever it is you said, actually give evidence for the existence of God? If you want to talk about psychologists, please review my post about Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self-actualization. Freud was a pioneer and should be remembered as such, but his own students mostly rejected his theories and moved on. Adler, Jung and his other students all proposed wildly different scenarios, but the science continued and was refined and focused by Carl Rogers, Maslow and others into a comprehensive, intuitive and accurate portrayal of man's position in nature without the need for fables, myths and religion for anything other than literature and morality tales. "Science rules, religion fools." quote from photojack
"through of the sciences and atrs and destroy the mythological universal and the archetypal structures that becomes our "ego" aprisioned in the structures and forms of universal symbolism worlds that the human ego want if ultrapasse and vanish in the imaginary world" mott.carl.
mott.carl, Care to explain that? Can you string more than three words together into a coherent sentence? Can you use punctuation effectively? Does whatever it is you said, actually give evidence for the existence of God? If you want to talk about psychologists, please review my post about Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self-actualization. Freud was a pioneer and should be remembered as such, but his own students mostly rejected his theories and moved on. Adler, Jung and his other students all proposed wildly different scenarios, but the science continued and was refined and focused by Carl Rogers, Maslow and others into a comprehensive, intuitive and accurate portrayal of man's position in nature without the need for fables, myths and religion for anything other than literature and morality tales. "Science rules, religion fools." quote from photojack
i am speaking about works of lacan with the thoughts of hegel.only this.
already freud,adler,jang,klein.jones...until lacan.
read hegel,please
already freud,adler,jang,klein.jones...until lacan.
read hegel,please
QUOTE
photojack Posted: Today at 7:03 PM
Then along comes mott.carl! Is there anyone that can clarify what "deepth dyalethics" is?
Then along comes mott.carl! Is there anyone that can clarify what "deepth dyalethics" is?
Webster's definition is "Delerium"
Usually as a result of cerebral hypoxia Probably caused by simple household carbon monoxide poisoning mott.carl,
If it's not CO, you're going to seriously need to lighten-up on the sugar-free foods. Aspartame overdose brother. Speak to your physician about deprenyl.
mott.carl, I looked at the wikipedia entry on Jacques Lacan and read about his "return to Freud" stance. An apt analogy would be for aviation to return to the Wright brothers. Both were pioneers, but the fields have moved on, evolving and refining to stages vastly beyond and more accurate than their origins.
"Critics from outside psychoanalysis, critical theory and the humanities have often dismissed Lacan and his work in a more or less wholesale fashion. François Roustang, in The Lacanian Delusion, called Lacan's output "extravagant" and an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish". Noam Chomsky described Lacan as "an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan". From wikipedia.
I would have to declare myself solidly in their camp. Lacan is unrealistic and not to be believed.
Now, to turn to Hegel, noted for his difficult and nearly incomprehensible methods and rejection of classical logic, Schopenhauer, once a colleague of Hegel's at the University of Berlin said: "The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity." from wikipedia.
I can now see how mott.carl has reached the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses.
mott.carl, please, you really need to read Carl Rogers AND Abraham Maslow for a current, believable and accurate psychological perspective. I will skip Lacan and Hegel except as dead end sidelights to real human understanding and insight into our place in nature.
"Critics from outside psychoanalysis, critical theory and the humanities have often dismissed Lacan and his work in a more or less wholesale fashion. François Roustang, in The Lacanian Delusion, called Lacan's output "extravagant" and an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish". Noam Chomsky described Lacan as "an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan". From wikipedia.
I would have to declare myself solidly in their camp. Lacan is unrealistic and not to be believed.
Now, to turn to Hegel, noted for his difficult and nearly incomprehensible methods and rejection of classical logic, Schopenhauer, once a colleague of Hegel's at the University of Berlin said: "The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity." from wikipedia.
I can now see how mott.carl has reached the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses.
mott.carl, please, you really need to read Carl Rogers AND Abraham Maslow for a current, believable and accurate psychological perspective. I will skip Lacan and Hegel except as dead end sidelights to real human understanding and insight into our place in nature.
photojack and T-cell. mott carl's first language is not Englsih and he uses a translation programme. Everything relevant is there if you care to look though not necessarily in the right order so cut him some slack.
Dialethics = Paradoxes and contradictions.
Dialethics = Paradoxes and contradictions.
Well, I feel like a complete a$$hole.
mott.carl,
If this is the case, my apologies.
kaneda,
Thanks for the info and setting the record straight.
Greatly appreciated.
mott.carl,
If this is the case, my apologies.
kaneda,
Thanks for the info and setting the record straight.
Greatly appreciated.
T-Cell. The same thing happened to me before I found out. I know how you feel.
photojack -respect yours thoughts about hegel and lacan.
and go try read carl rogers
t-cell( do you know the that is cell-t?).must be thing to eat.Is this?read lacan and hegel.eat cell- t .does well to your heath.
kaneda-the man that know all about all.and know the that? nothing.
and go try read carl rogers
t-cell( do you know the that is cell-t?).must be thing to eat.Is this?read lacan and hegel.eat cell- t .does well to your heath.
kaneda-the man that know all about all.and know the that? nothing.
mott.carl, I wouldn't try to eat T cells! They are a group of white blood cells known as lymphocytes and play a central role in the human immune response to disease. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh concerning your sentence structure, I was unaware of your use of a translation program from Portuguese to English. I hope you do take the advice to read further in psychology, especially Maslow. He is the one who seems to grasp the generalities most completely and has offered the best explanations of the potentialities of the human mind. My propensity to teach inspires my to help where I can. Wikipedia is one of the best resources on the Internet. It is available in Portuguese, just not quite as complete as the English articles. I looked up "T cell", "Abraham Maslow" and "Carl Rogers", as well as "Jacques Lacan", and "Hegel" yesterday as part of my "homework" to help you in your quest for knowledge. Keep your curiosity alive.
I noticed a ".br" reference in one of your earlier posts meaning a Brazilian website. I have been to Brazil from Manaus to Brasilia, then Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. You live in a beautiful country. Where do you live? I'm from San Diego, California. Maybe now we can get back to the main topic.
I noticed a ".br" reference in one of your earlier posts meaning a Brazilian website. I have been to Brazil from Manaus to Brasilia, then Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. You live in a beautiful country. Where do you live? I'm from San Diego, California. Maybe now we can get back to the main topic.
mott.carl, Just a quick example of the Portuguese wikipedia for your enjoyment:
Linfócito T
Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
Os linfócitos T formam-se quando as células mães ou precursoras migram da medula óssea para o timo, uma glândula onde se dividem e amadurecem. Os linfócitos T aprendem a distinguir o próprio do estranho no timo. Os linfócitos T maduros abandonam o timo e entram no sistema linfático, onde funcionam como parte do sistema imunitário de vigilância. O Linfócito T auxiliar tem a função de coordenar a função de defesa imunológica contra vírus, bactérias e fungos, principalmente através da produção e liberação de substâncias chamadas citocinas. Na Síndrome de Imunodeficiência Adquirida, sua destruição pelo vírus HIV dá início à deficiência imunológica.
O Linfócito T citotóxico é um importante leucócito que ataca células que se tornam anormais, geralmente tumorais ou infectadas por vírus.
This is the T cell article! In my limited Spanish, no es para un comida.
Linfócito T
Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
Os linfócitos T formam-se quando as células mães ou precursoras migram da medula óssea para o timo, uma glândula onde se dividem e amadurecem. Os linfócitos T aprendem a distinguir o próprio do estranho no timo. Os linfócitos T maduros abandonam o timo e entram no sistema linfático, onde funcionam como parte do sistema imunitário de vigilância. O Linfócito T auxiliar tem a função de coordenar a função de defesa imunológica contra vírus, bactérias e fungos, principalmente através da produção e liberação de substâncias chamadas citocinas. Na Síndrome de Imunodeficiência Adquirida, sua destruição pelo vírus HIV dá início à deficiência imunológica.
O Linfócito T citotóxico é um importante leucócito que ataca células que se tornam anormais, geralmente tumorais ou infectadas por vírus.
This is the T cell article! In my limited Spanish, no es para un comida.
QUOTE (TIMOTHY_GOOD+Jun 7 2009, 12:03 PM)
The Quran has no mistakes, and is is in itself a great miracle. Love Timothy
Well except for saying that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God and that the Koran does not conflict with Christian belief.
So which is it? It does not conflict with Christianity or Jesus was only a Prophet?
Well except for saying that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God and that the Koran does not conflict with Christian belief.
So which is it? It does not conflict with Christianity or Jesus was only a Prophet?
Instinctively, I think Thor kicks the heck out of Allah.
How's that for instinct? Would you like to try reason next?
How's that for instinct? Would you like to try reason next?
QUOTE (TIMOTHY_GOOD+Jun 7 2009, 12:03 PM)
What do you believe instinctively? Do you believe that there is Creator? Or do think we created ourselves? Or has all of creation come together spontaneously? What makes the most sense to you, considering the complexity, delicacy and complete order and function of the whole universe? Nothing spontaneous could create such order and smooth functioning of organisms and systems and nothing man creates is free of error and mistake. So the only plausible explanation is that the universe was created by God. This is the conclusion I have come to.
Love Timothy
But the human body has so many flaws.
Evolution does not say that anything about species originating spontaneously.
Love Timothy
But the human body has so many flaws.
Evolution does not say that anything about species originating spontaneously.
QUOTE (TIMOTHY_GOOD+Jun 7 2009, 12:03 PM)
Nothing spontaneous could create such order and smooth functioning of organisms and systems and nothing man creates is free of error and mistake.
That's just a load of bull crap. Man has created plenty of error free somethings as opposed to the "nothing" you claim.
Stainless Steel --- Show me whats wrong with stainless steel. Where's the error/mistake?
Vulcanized Rubber -- Rubber that lasts and lasts ... is durable and easy to mold into various useful shapes. How did man screw that up exactly?
Broadcasting --- We put a video camera there and show it over here. And it looks just the same only 2 dimensional ... The error? The mistake?
Example #4 --- One of any additional MILLION or so things that man created and is "free of error and mistake."
That sort of regurgitated hoo-haw from your granddaddy is completely out of place in any discussion here. The rest of your clap-trap unfortunately is par for the course.
That's just a load of bull crap. Man has created plenty of error free somethings as opposed to the "nothing" you claim.
Stainless Steel --- Show me whats wrong with stainless steel. Where's the error/mistake?
Vulcanized Rubber -- Rubber that lasts and lasts ... is durable and easy to mold into various useful shapes. How did man screw that up exactly?
Broadcasting --- We put a video camera there and show it over here. And it looks just the same only 2 dimensional ... The error? The mistake?
Example #4 --- One of any additional MILLION or so things that man created and is "free of error and mistake."
That sort of regurgitated hoo-haw from your granddaddy is completely out of place in any discussion here. The rest of your clap-trap unfortunately is par for the course.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jun 8 2009, 06:35 AM)
<snip> Man has created plenty of error free somethings <snip>
Stainless Steel --- Show me whats wrong with stainless steel. Where's the error/mistake?
Vulcanized Rubber -- Rubber that lasts and lasts ... is durable and easy to mold into various useful shapes. How did man screw that up exactly?
Broadcasting --- We put a video camera there and show it over here. And it looks just the same only 2 dimensional ... The error? The mistake?
Example #4 --- One of any additional MILLION or so things that man created and is "free of error and mistake."
<snip>
You really hung it out there, Dude.
All that stuff comes apart, even from the point of manufacture. (When I had braces on my teeth and got up the courage to talk, a new rubber band broke and hit the girl in the face.)
Entropy is an integral aspect of everything. The other half of reality (God, Murgatroid, Uncle Charlie or whatever name you use for the unity of everything) is evolution. Everything that invariably comes apart gets recycled into new stuff.
Nowadays in manufacturing it's best to accept that designers and engineers never know everything and to try to plan ahead for how to recycle the pieces when it comes apart.
Stainless Steel --- Show me whats wrong with stainless steel. Where's the error/mistake?
Vulcanized Rubber -- Rubber that lasts and lasts ... is durable and easy to mold into various useful shapes. How did man screw that up exactly?
Broadcasting --- We put a video camera there and show it over here. And it looks just the same only 2 dimensional ... The error? The mistake?
Example #4 --- One of any additional MILLION or so things that man created and is "free of error and mistake."
<snip>
You really hung it out there, Dude.
All that stuff comes apart, even from the point of manufacture. (When I had braces on my teeth and got up the courage to talk, a new rubber band broke and hit the girl in the face.)
Entropy is an integral aspect of everything. The other half of reality (God, Murgatroid, Uncle Charlie or whatever name you use for the unity of everything) is evolution. Everything that invariably comes apart gets recycled into new stuff.
Nowadays in manufacturing it's best to accept that designers and engineers never know everything and to try to plan ahead for how to recycle the pieces when it comes apart.
QUOTE (Biologist+Jan 23 2007, 06:02 AM)
Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards, the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...
Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.
By the same token, no one would deny that a staple-nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk-was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.
What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think? www.allahexists.com
Allah is not God. Jesus is. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael. See Genesis 16:3 I need forgiveness for my sins. My works can't save me.
I am also saying this because of 911 and fear. I remember something about "by the sword" in a Western civilization class years ago.
Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.
By the same token, no one would deny that a staple-nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk-was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.
What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think? www.allahexists.com
Allah is not God. Jesus is. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael. See Genesis 16:3 I need forgiveness for my sins. My works can't save me.
I am also saying this because of 911 and fear. I remember something about "by the sword" in a Western civilization class years ago.
QUOTE (sporacle+Jun 8 2009, 08:53 AM)
You really hung it out there, Dude.
All that stuff comes apart, even from the point of manufacture. (When I had braces on my teeth and got up the courage to talk, a new rubber band broke and hit the girl in the face.)
Entropy is an integral aspect of everything. The other half of reality (God, Murgatroid, Uncle Charlie or whatever name you use for the unity of everything) is evolution. Everything that invariably comes apart gets recycled into new stuff.
Nowadays in manufacturing it's best to accept that designers and engineers never know everything and to try to plan ahead for how to recycle the pieces when it comes apart.
DUH .. of course those things come apart with the passage of time .... Brilliant observation. However, doofus wasn't talking about that. He was implying that everything man creates is flawed or in error in some way; and that CLEARLY is a specious argument. It's not a new theological argument; and it's not new that it's completely invalid. It's supposed to show that Mrs. Omnipotent is flawless by showing how weak man is compared to her. It's bullshit. It's inane sophistry.
Your point is just about as weak. Entropy affects not only man's creations ... it affects EVERY single thing that idiots attribute to Mr. Omnipresent's creation.
All that stuff comes apart, even from the point of manufacture. (When I had braces on my teeth and got up the courage to talk, a new rubber band broke and hit the girl in the face.)
Entropy is an integral aspect of everything. The other half of reality (God, Murgatroid, Uncle Charlie or whatever name you use for the unity of everything) is evolution. Everything that invariably comes apart gets recycled into new stuff.
Nowadays in manufacturing it's best to accept that designers and engineers never know everything and to try to plan ahead for how to recycle the pieces when it comes apart.
DUH .. of course those things come apart with the passage of time .... Brilliant observation. However, doofus wasn't talking about that. He was implying that everything man creates is flawed or in error in some way; and that CLEARLY is a specious argument. It's not a new theological argument; and it's not new that it's completely invalid. It's supposed to show that Mrs. Omnipotent is flawless by showing how weak man is compared to her. It's bullshit. It's inane sophistry.
Your point is just about as weak. Entropy affects not only man's creations ... it affects EVERY single thing that idiots attribute to Mr. Omnipresent's creation.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 7 2009, 06:54 PM)
Instinctively, I think Thor kicks the heck out of Allah.
Damn skippy!
Damn skippy!
Unfortunately, the OP does not provide evidence that a god exists. All that he is presenting is an idea that things were created intentionally.
Even if I accept that things might have been created intentionally, it is not evidence for a god. Even if it were proven that things were created intentionally, it would not prove a god. A god requires much more than the ability to intentionally create.
Even if I accept that things might have been created intentionally, it is not evidence for a god. Even if it were proven that things were created intentionally, it would not prove a god. A god requires much more than the ability to intentionally create.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jan 23 2007, 06:47 AM)
Both Mohamed and Jesus have done more to ruin our lives than any other two people in history.
How do you think things would be better for who if they had never existed?
How do you think things would be better for who if they had never existed?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 9 2009, 10:41 PM)
How do you think things would be better for who if they had never existed?
What does it matter to you?
If Jesus existed he was just a lousy space alien, Right?
What does it matter to you?
If Jesus existed he was just a lousy space alien, Right?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 10 2009, 09:34 AM)
If Jesus existed he was just a lousy space alien, Right?
Obviously not since he was born on Earth. You can't get any bit of this right, even the most easy and obvious things. But then apparently you are still just in grade school, so we can't expect much out of you.
Obviously not since he was born on Earth. You can't get any bit of this right, even the most easy and obvious things. But then apparently you are still just in grade school, so we can't expect much out of you.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 10 2009, 09:48 PM)
Obviously not since he was born on Earth. You can't get any bit of this right, even the most easy and obvious things. But then apparently you are still just in grade school, so we can't expect much out of you.
Jesus supposed to have had extraordinary powers, yet according to you he wasn't an advanced alien.So? What is your explanation then?
Jesus supposed to have had extraordinary powers, yet according to you he wasn't an advanced alien.So? What is your explanation then?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 9 2009, 10:41 PM)
How do you think things would be better for who if they had never existed?
Islamic Extremism
Islamic Terrorism
Muslim Conquests
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Oh, I dunno... What do you think, dumbass?
Islamic Extremism
Islamic Terrorism
Muslim Conquests
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Oh, I dunno... What do you think, dumbass?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 10 2009, 05:29 PM)
Islamic Extremism
Islamic Terrorism
Muslim Conquests
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Oh, I dunno... What do you think, dumbass?
I don't believe Jesus would have approved of any of that, and doubt that Mohammed would have either.
Islamic Terrorism
Muslim Conquests
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Oh, I dunno... What do you think, dumbass?
I don't believe Jesus would have approved of any of that, and doubt that Mohammed would have either.
QUOTE (vkamath+Jun 10 2009, 04:37 PM)
Jesus supposed to have had extraordinary powers, yet according to you he wasn't an advanced alien.
He was born on Earth.
Why is there this ongoing, repetitive dialog with this idiot? It's the same nonsense over and over, on multiple threads.
He was born on Earth.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
So? What is your explanation then?
God worked through him. It's not really that hard to think through, even if you can't do it personally.
God worked through him. It's not really that hard to think through, even if you can't do it personally.
QUOTE
God worked through him. It's not really that hard to think through, even if you can't do it personally.
Why is there this ongoing, repetitive dialog with this idiot? It's the same nonsense over and over, on multiple threads.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 11 2009, 12:37 AM)
God worked through him. It's not really that hard to think through, even if you can't do it personally.
You believe just about everything written in the Bible, yet you claim you believe nothing.
You believe just about everything written in the Bible, yet you claim you believe nothing.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 10 2009, 05:29 PM)
Islamic Extremism
Islamic Terrorism
Muslim Conquests
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Oh, I dunno... What do you think, dumbass?
Well, there's violence associated with any political movement.
I think the greatest damage continues to be the scientific one. Almost a billion people think there was a great Flood a few thousand years ago, and because of that, they just know a great deal less about the world than they need to.
I think that if we didn't have Islam, we'd still have a great deal of the violence, because I think the violence is more associated with political frustration and desert conditions than anything else. But we'd wouldn't have this overwhelming inability to understand that natural history should be viewed in larger timeframes than we currently do.
Islamic Terrorism
Muslim Conquests
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Oh, I dunno... What do you think, dumbass?
Well, there's violence associated with any political movement.
I think the greatest damage continues to be the scientific one. Almost a billion people think there was a great Flood a few thousand years ago, and because of that, they just know a great deal less about the world than they need to.
I think that if we didn't have Islam, we'd still have a great deal of the violence, because I think the violence is more associated with political frustration and desert conditions than anything else. But we'd wouldn't have this overwhelming inability to understand that natural history should be viewed in larger timeframes than we currently do.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jun 11 2009, 04:23 PM)
I think that if we didn't have Islam, we'd still have a great deal of the violence, because I think the violence is more associated with politic
I've seen people suggest that if it weren't for Christianity, the Europeans would never have taken over the Americas.
The very idea
Why is there this ongoing, repetitive dialog with this idiot?
To make people like you wonder about it.
I've seen people suggest that if it weren't for Christianity, the Europeans would never have taken over the Americas.
The very idea QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
al frustration and desert conditions than anything else. But we'd wouldn't have this overwhelming inability to understand that natural history should be viewed in larger timeframes than we currently do.
I've been wondering how many in this bunch believe the Earth is only around 12 thousand years old
I've been wondering how many in this bunch believe the Earth is only around 12 thousand years old
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 10 2009, 07:10 PM)
Why is there this ongoing, repetitive dialog with this idiot?
To make people like you wonder about it
.
QUOTE (vkamath+Jun 10 2009, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
God worked through him. It's not really that hard to think through, even if you can't do it personally.
You believe just about everything written in the Bible, yet you claim you believe nothing.
My guess is you believe none of it, so you can't relate to the concept at all.
My guess is you believe none of it, so you can't relate to the concept at all.
Holy flawed logic, Batman!
You believe just about everything written in the Bible, yet you claim you believe nothing.
My guess is you believe none of it, so you can't relate to the concept at all.
QUOTE (nonSense+Jun 11 2009, 05:20 PM)
My guess is you believe none of it, so you can't relate to the concept at all.
Holy flawed logic, Batman!
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 11 2009, 05:15 PM)
To make people like you wonder about it .
Wonder? ..... you're just a dopEy git, & I've concrete confirmation from over 6.5 billion individual sources.
. Wonder? ..... you're just a dopEy git, & I've concrete confirmation from over 6.5 billion individual sources.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 11 2009, 10:50 PM)
My guess is you believe none of it, so you can't relate to the concept at all.
I can understand the "concept", but I reject it due to lack of evidence.
I can understand the "concept", but I reject it due to lack of evidence.
QUOTE (vkamath+Jun 11 2009, 06:09 PM)
I can understand the "concept", but I reject it due to lack of evidence.
If you disbelieve all of it, then you can't relate to those who believe some of it. So anything more complex than that would certainly be way beyond you, yet it almost seems that you want to try.
If you disbelieve all of it, then you can't relate to those who believe some of it. So anything more complex than that would certainly be way beyond you, yet it almost seems that you want to try.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 11 2009, 07:20 PM)
If you disbelieve all of it, then you can't relate to those who believe some of it. So anything more complex than that would certainly be way beyond you, yet it almost seems that you want to try.
Who said he disbelieved all of it?
You twist things so badly.
There is a huge difference between disbelieving all of it and believing that it has not been demonstrated to be accurate.
Who said he disbelieved all of it?
You twist things so badly.
There is a huge difference between disbelieving all of it and believing that it has not been demonstrated to be accurate.
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Jun 11 2009, 05:47 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
To make people like you wonder about it .
Wonder?
Wonder, become bewildered
, and probably drool a good bit...
Wonder, become bewildered , and probably drool a good bit...
Yep, that's what you do every time we prove you wrong.
This, however, begs a trifling question: Why hasn't your keyboard short-circuited from all the drool yet?
.Wonder?
Wonder, become bewildered
, and probably drool a good bit...
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 12 2009, 12:50 AM)
If you disbelieve all of it, then you can't relate to those who believe some of it. So anything more complex than that would certainly be way beyond you, yet it almost seems that you want to try.
I reject it not because it is complex, but because it doesn't have any evidence. I think your alien story is stupid though.
I reject it not because it is complex, but because it doesn't have any evidence. I think your alien story is stupid though.
QUOTE (nonSense+Jun 11 2009, 07:32 PM)
Wonder, become bewildered
, and probably drool a good bit...Yep, that's what you do every time we prove you wrong.
This, however, begs a trifling question: Why hasn't your keyboard short-circuited from all the drool yet?
QUOTE (vkamath+Jun 11 2009, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If you disbelieve all of it, then you can't relate to those who believe some of it. So anything more complex than that would certainly be way beyond you, yet it almost seems that you want to try.
I reject it not because it is complex, but because it doesn't have any evidence.
It is still WAAAAAY more complex than disbelief, though you may truly be unable to comprehend why I suppose.
I guess maybe we can't help what seems stupid to us and what doesn't, but I feel certain the odds of being correct are on my side not yours.
Megalomaniac idiot.
It is still WAAAAAY more complex than disbelief, though you may truly be unable to comprehend why I suppose.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
I think your alien story is stupid though.
Well I think your idea that he could be or even would want to be native to planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years is pretty stupid too.
I guess maybe we can't help what seems stupid to us and what doesn't, but I feel certain the odds of being correct are on my side not yours.
Well I think your idea that he could be or even would want to be native to planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years
is pretty stupid too.I guess maybe we can't help what seems stupid to us and what doesn't, but I feel certain the odds of being correct are on my side not yours.
QUOTE (nutBox+Jun 20 2009, 03:41 PM)
I guess maybe we can't help what seems stupid to us and what doesn't, but I feel certain the odds of being correct are on my side not yours.
Too bad they aren't.
Too bad they aren't.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 21 2009, 05:07 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I guess maybe we can't help what seems stupid to us and what doesn't, but I feel certain the odds of being correct are on my side not yours.
Too bad they aren't.
All evidence says they are. All evidence we have so far tells us that a being can't be native to a planet it's not native to, and also that it can't be native to a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years AFTER the being had come into existence.
If you think you know of something to suggest he could be native to a planet he could not be native to, then share the news.
Maybe you'd like to repeat the suggestion that he traveled back or forward in time to create the planet of his own origin 
?
All evidence says they are. All evidence we have so far tells us that a being can't be native to a planet it's not native to, and also that it can't be native to a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years AFTER the being had come into existence.
If you think you know of something to suggest he could be native to a planet he could not be native to, then share the news.
Maybe you'd like to repeat the suggestion that he traveled back or forward in time
to create the planet of his own origin ?
This idiocy keeps continuing because everybody here keeps feeding it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 21 2009, 07:03 PM)
This idiocy keeps continuing because everybody here keeps feeding it.
The idiocy is because people want to oppose what I point out, but they don't have any more realistic alternatives to suggest instead.
Why do you even want to, do you have any idea about that? Why do you want so very badly to believe that God could exist as an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years after he had already come into existence? Why do you want that particular idiotic sounding situation to be the truth? Why do you even care???
The idiocy is because people want to oppose what I point out, but they don't have any more realistic alternatives to suggest instead.
Why do you even want to, do you have any idea about that? Why do you want so very badly to believe that God could exist as an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years after he had already come into existence? Why do you want that particular idiotic sounding
situation to be the truth? Why do you even care???
QUOTE
The idiocy is because people want to oppose what I point out
Megalomaniac idiot.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 21 2009, 04:19 PM)
Too bad they aren't.
[/QUOTE]
All evidence says they are.
All evidence says we evolved without outside interference.
You can say there is evidence that God is not omnipotent but that is not evidence he exists.
You can say that God is not a native of this planet but that is not evidence he exists.
You are no longer talking about "if".
Show some evidence that the developement of mankind has been interfered with.
[/QUOTE]All evidence says they are.
All evidence says we evolved without outside interference.
You can say there is evidence that God is not omnipotent but that is not evidence he exists.
You can say that God is not a native of this planet but that is not evidence he exists.
You are no longer talking about "if".
Show some evidence that the developement of mankind has been interfered with.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 22 2009, 12:00 AM)
All evidence says we evolved without outside interference.
And this is why Darwin's idea was and is so powerful. He found the 'Interferer', Natural Selection!
And this is why Darwin's idea was and is so powerful. He found the 'Interferer', Natural Selection!
Some people just do not look hard enough.
QUOTE (Mark Dawson+Jun 22 2009, 11:59 AM)
Some people just do not look hard enough.
Creationists for example.
Actually they don't do much looking at all. And only look for "data" that fits what they pre-believe.
But Evolutionists look stringently and so far have found explanations for what Creationists "find".
Creationists for example.
Actually they don't do much looking at all. And only look for "data" that fits what they pre-believe.
But Evolutionists look stringently and so far have found explanations for what Creationists "find".
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 22 2009, 02:27 PM)
Creationists for example.
Actually they don't do much looking at all. And only look for "data" that fits what they pre-believe.
But Evolutionists look stringently and so far have found explanations for what Creationists "find".
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
Actually they don't do much looking at all. And only look for "data" that fits what they pre-believe.
But Evolutionists look stringently and so far have found explanations for what Creationists "find".
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 22 2009, 03:37 PM)
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
There is an unsubstantiated "if" in there.
You have not shown that God does exist. You have simply put a limitation on his existence.
You have not shown any evidence that Evolution has been influenced by anything other than natural selection.
Show that and you will have made progress.
method of creation.
There is an unsubstantiated "if" in there.
You have not shown that God does exist. You have simply put a limitation on his existence.
You have not shown any evidence that Evolution has been influenced by anything other than natural selection.
Show that and you will have made progress.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 22 2009, 03:57 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary method of creation.
There is an unsubstantiated "if" in there.
You have not shown that God does exist. You have simply put a limitation on his existence.
You have not shown any evidence that Evolution has been influenced by anything other than natural selection.
I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out an aspect of the situation that apparently some people don't want to see taken into consideration for whatever reason. Why don't you?
There is an unsubstantiated "if" in there.
You have not shown that God does exist. You have simply put a limitation on his existence.
You have not shown any evidence that Evolution has been influenced by anything other than natural selection.
I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out an aspect of the situation that apparently some people don't want to see taken into consideration for whatever reason. Why don't you?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 24 2009, 03:12 PM)
There is an unsubstantiated "if" in there.
You have not shown that God does exist. You have simply put a limitation on his existence.
You have not shown any evidence that Evolution has been influenced by anything other than natural selection.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out an aspect of the situation that apparently some people don't want to see taken into consideration for whatever reason. Why don't you?
The reason we don't is because you aren't adding anything.
You aren't making any progress, you aren't making any advancement.
What have you said to consider?
If God exists he must be an alien.
Yeah whatever, dream on.
There done.
If the liquid in front of me is an acid it will not turn litmus paper blue.
Have I learned anything about the liquid? NO!
I won't untill I get litmus paper and see what happens.
You have not shown that God does exist. You have simply put a limitation on his existence.
You have not shown any evidence that Evolution has been influenced by anything other than natural selection.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out an aspect of the situation that apparently some people don't want to see taken into consideration for whatever reason. Why don't you?
The reason we don't is because you aren't adding anything.
You aren't making any progress, you aren't making any advancement.
What have you said to consider?
If God exists he must be an alien.
Yeah whatever, dream on.
There done.
If the liquid in front of me is an acid it will not turn litmus paper blue.
Have I learned anything about the liquid? NO!
I won't untill I get litmus paper and see what happens.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 24 2009, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I was just pointing out an aspect of the situation that apparently some people don't want to see taken into consideration for whatever reason. Why don't you?
The reason we don't is because you aren't adding anything.
You aren't making any progress, you aren't making any advancement.
What have you said to consider?
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
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.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
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.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
The reason we don't is because you aren't adding anything.
You aren't making any progress, you aren't making any advancement.
What have you said to consider?
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
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.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
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.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
If God exists he must be an alien.
Yeah whatever, dream on.
There done.
No, you haven't even begun. You have scoffed at the obvious and probable idea that God could not be native to a planet he created after he had already been in existence for billions of years, but you haven't even tried to explain how you believe that he COULD BE. You necessarily have to explain how YOU think he could be, before we can know what you think you're trying to talk about. Try explaining it NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!:
Yeah whatever, dream on.
There done.
No, you haven't even begun. You have scoffed at the obvious and probable idea that God could not be native to a planet he created after he had already been in existence for billions of years, but you haven't even tried to explain how you believe that he COULD BE. You necessarily have to explain how YOU think he could be, before we can know what you think you're trying to talk about. Try explaining it NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!:
The nutcase keeps adding to his list.
I've always liked this one
where he says he won't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.
He's obviously here to preach his own brand of religion, because he has no interest in anything anyone has to say here.
I've always liked this one
QUOTE
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
where he says he won't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.
He's obviously here to preach his own brand of religion, because he has no interest in anything anyone has to say here.
All you have done is add "ifs" therefore you have added nothing.
You have not followed a single "if" through.
God could be non-existent.
Then he would not be a native of this planet.
I've never said he was a native of this planet.
You have given no evidence of his existence.
Suppose you have an unlimited number of shells and overturn some and say the pea is not under this one. That does nothing to prove that there is a pea under any shell.
And then you don't overturn a certain shell and say the pea must be under that one.
You have not followed a single "if" through.
God could be non-existent.
Then he would not be a native of this planet.
I've never said he was a native of this planet.
You have given no evidence of his existence.
Suppose you have an unlimited number of shells and overturn some and say the pea is not under this one. That does nothing to prove that there is a pea under any shell.
And then you don't overturn a certain shell and say the pea must be under that one.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 24 2009, 07:56 PM)
The nutcase keeps adding to his list.
I've always liked this one
where he says he won't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.
He's obviously here to preach his own brand of religion, because he has no interest in anything anyone has to say here.
That's in large part because I'm still capable of learning, when there's something to learn.
I've always liked this one
where he says he won't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.
He's obviously here to preach his own brand of religion, because he has no interest in anything anyone has to say here.
That's in large part because I'm still capable of learning, when there's something to learn.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 24 2009, 07:56 PM)
He's obviously here to preach his own brand of religion, because he has no interest in anything anyone has to say here.
I am very interested in how people think God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence, but so far none of you have even made an attempt to explain. All any of you have been able to do is deny that he could be anything else, without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is.
I am very interested in how people think God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence, but so far none of you have even made an attempt to explain. All any of you have been able to do is deny that he could be anything else
, without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 24 2009, 10:52 PM)
I am very interested in how people think God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence, but so far none of you have even made an attempt to explain. All any of you have been able to do is deny that he could be anything else , without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is.
Absolutely no one here has suggested such. I am the only one that has given what could be considered an example.
Edit: BTW my example was Jesus Christ.
, without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is. Absolutely no one here has suggested such. I am the only one that has given what could be considered an example.
Edit: BTW my example was Jesus Christ.
nopEda,
I don't think anyone can explain how God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence or how he can be anything other than a technologically advanced alien.
But a believer can believe God is whatever they want and a non-believer need not believe God exists at all.
Is that good enough for you?
I don't think anyone can explain how God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence or how he can be anything other than a technologically advanced alien.
But a believer can believe God is whatever they want and a non-believer need not believe God exists at all.
Is that good enough for you?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 25 2009, 02:52 AM)
I am very interested in how people think God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence, but so far none of you have even made an attempt to explain. All any of you have been able to do is deny that he could be anything else , without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is.
What we are suggesting is that you have suggested nothing plausible.
You entire list is a list of why not to believe.
Take the one about the "childish" beliefs. That one shows that people have made up imaginary characters. Which raises the possibility that God was also made up as an imaginary character and does not exist.
You have never given a reason to have the Easter Bunny in one catagory but not have God in the same catagory.
, without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is. What we are suggesting is that you have suggested nothing plausible.
You entire list is a list of why not to believe.
Take the one about the "childish" beliefs. That one shows that people have made up imaginary characters. Which raises the possibility that God was also made up as an imaginary character and does not exist.
You have never given a reason to have the Easter Bunny in one catagory but not have God in the same catagory.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 25 2009, 08:32 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I am very interested in how people think God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence, but so far none of you have even made an attempt to explain. All any of you have been able to do is deny that he could be anything else , without being able to explain how you think he possibly could be what you're suggesting he is.
Absolutely no one here has suggested such.
Everyone who has disagreed that:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
has suggested it.
Everyone who has disagreed that:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
has suggested it.
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
I am the only one that has given what could be considered an example.
Someone suggested that what we consider to be God could be humans from the future who traveled back in time to create the planet of their own origin.
Someone suggested that what we consider to be God could be humans from the future who traveled back in time to create the planet of their own origin.
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
Edit: BTW my example was Jesus Christ.
You could only be right if he prayed to himself, but there are things which encourage us to believe he prayed to some other being.
You could only be right if he prayed to himself, but there are things which encourage us to believe he prayed to some other being.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Someone suggested that what we consider to be God could be humans from the future who traveled back in time to create the planet of their own origin.
Yes...You.
Yes...You.
QUOTE (vkamath+Jun 25 2009, 09:13 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Someone suggested that what we consider to be God could be humans from the future who traveled back in time to create the planet of their own origin.
Yes...You.
Nope, not me. It is stupid though and you are right to be ashamed that one of your forum brothers made such a stupid suggestion. I pointed out that when people talk about supposed time travel, they are really describing situations in which everything changes EXCEPT for the individuals who are supposed to be doing the traveling . I feel sure that's too much for you to comprehend though...
Nope, not me. It is stupid though and you are right to be ashamed that one of your forum brothers
made such a stupid suggestion. I pointed out that when people talk about supposed time travel, they are really describing situations in which everything changes EXCEPT for the individuals who are supposed to be doing the traveling . I feel sure that's too much for you to comprehend though...
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 25 2009, 10:12 AM)
nopEda,
I don't think anyone can explain how God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence or how he can be anything other than a technologically advanced alien.
But a believer can believe God is whatever they want and a non-believer need not believe God exists at all.
Is that good enough for you?
I try to think realistically, so just grabbing anything and trying to hang on doesn't work for me. How could it be real? That's what I try to answer...
I don't think anyone can explain how God could be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created billions of years after he had already come into existence or how he can be anything other than a technologically advanced alien.
But a believer can believe God is whatever they want and a non-believer need not believe God exists at all.
Is that good enough for you?
I try to think realistically, so just grabbing anything and trying to hang on doesn't work for me. How could it be real? That's what I try to answer...
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 25 2009, 11:56 AM)
Take the one about the "childish" beliefs. That one shows that people have made up imaginary characters. Which raises the possibility that God was also made up as an imaginary character and does not exist.
It just acknowledges that there are unrealistic seeming beliefs. There are lots of them, imo.
It just acknowledges that there are unrealistic seeming beliefs. There are lots of them, imo.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You have never given a reason to have the Easter Bunny in one catagory but not have God in the same catagory.
I know the EB is BS. I don't know that God is BS. No one does, and no one can. People can know if God does exist, but not if he does not. In contrast to that, many people know the EB does not exist. Trying to think about them both in the same way, or even wanting to, is very unrealistic.
I know the EB is BS. I don't know that God is BS. No one does, and no one can. People can know if God does exist, but not if he does not. In contrast to that, many people know the EB does not exist. Trying to think about them both in the same way, or even wanting to, is very unrealistic.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 26 2009, 06:10 PM)
It just acknowledges that there are unrealistic seeming beliefs. There are lots of them, imo.
Exactly it does nothing to say about what beliefs are accurate.
All it does is establish that there are unrealistic beliefs, which means that there is precident for unrealistic beliefs. Which raises the possibility that God is one such belief. Space aliens is also another such unrealistic belief imo.
How can people know if God exists?
How do people know the EB does not exist?
And why is it unrealistic to think of both the same way?
You keep making statements without backing them up.
Exactly it does nothing to say about what beliefs are accurate.
All it does is establish that there are unrealistic beliefs, which means that there is precident for unrealistic beliefs. Which raises the possibility that God is one such belief. Space aliens is also another such unrealistic belief imo.
How can people know if God exists?
How do people know the EB does not exist?
And why is it unrealistic to think of both the same way?
You keep making statements without backing them up.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 26 2009, 06:23 PM)
Exactly it does nothing to say about what beliefs are accurate.
All it does is establish that there are unrealistic beliefs, which means that there is precident for unrealistic beliefs. Which raises the possibility that God is one such belief. Space aliens is also another such unrealistic belief imo.
How can people know if God exists?
How do people know the EB does not exist?
And why is it unrealistic to think of both the same way?
You keep making statements without backing them up.
You ignore realistic beliefs based on truth. What is truth, buttershug?
All it does is establish that there are unrealistic beliefs, which means that there is precident for unrealistic beliefs. Which raises the possibility that God is one such belief. Space aliens is also another such unrealistic belief imo.
How can people know if God exists?
How do people know the EB does not exist?
And why is it unrealistic to think of both the same way?
You keep making statements without backing them up.
You ignore realistic beliefs based on truth. What is truth, buttershug?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 07:11 PM)
You ignore realistic beliefs based on truth.
Better than ignoring truth itself.
Better than ignoring truth itself.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 27 2009, 12:11 AM)
You ignore realistic beliefs based on truth. What is truth, buttershug?
The truth is no one has given me any evidence for God.
Truth is what remains when you stop believing in it.
The truth is no one has given me any evidence for God.
Truth is what remains when you stop believing in it.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Someone suggested that what we consider to be God could be humans from the future who traveled back in time to create the planet of their own origin.
No...you are a liar (in addition to an idiot). You added "..who traveled back in time to create the planet of their origin" at the end of that sentence.
I keep pointing it out, yet you keep repeating that lie.
Edit: Here is the link to what I suggested.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=412387
No...you are a liar (in addition to an idiot). You added "..who traveled back in time to create the planet of their origin" at the end of that sentence.
I keep pointing it out, yet you keep repeating that lie.
Edit: Here is the link to what I suggested.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=412387
QUOTE (vkamath+Jun 27 2009, 07:15 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Someone suggested that what we consider to be God could be humans from the future who traveled back in time to create the planet of their own origin.
No...you are a liar (in addition to an idiot). You added "..who traveled back in time to create the planet of their origin" at the end of that sentence.
I keep pointing it out, yet you keep repeating that lie.
Edit: Here is the link to what I suggested.
Forget your link, here's the quote:
No...you are a liar (in addition to an idiot). You added "..who traveled back in time to create the planet of their origin" at the end of that sentence.
I keep pointing it out, yet you keep repeating that lie.
Edit: Here is the link to what I suggested.
Forget your link, here's the quote:
QUOTE (vkamath+)
There are other equally improbable possibilities too. People from the future (Terminator style) with advanced technologies can be mistaken for god. That would make them natives of this planet.
The idea of traveling back in time is idiotic to begin with, so anything that's dependant on the idea is idiotic. We are discussing what God would be like, NOT!everything or anything else that is NOT God. I told you that at the time but you wanted to keep on with the idea, so if we apply it to God as you wanted to do then he/they would have had to create the planet of their own origin. I told you to drop it but you wanted to keep on so they would have had to have done what I pointed out they would have had to have done, but it's still YOUR unrealistic concept.
The idea of traveling back in time is idiotic to begin with, so anything that's dependant on the idea is idiotic. We are discussing what God would be like, NOT!everything or anything else that is NOT God. I told you that at the time but you wanted to keep on with the idea, so if we apply it to God as you wanted to do then he/they would have had to create the planet of their own origin. I told you to drop it but you wanted to keep on so they would have had to have done what I pointed out they would have had to have done, but it's still YOUR unrealistic concept.
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.