QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 27 2009, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants told the stupidly obvious lie+)
Every time you sit there in front of your computer and type "Animals don't have language" you're claiming they don't communicate.
You saying that it's a lie does not make it one
It being a stupidly blatant lie certainly makes it a lie, and now we see you wanting to repeat it too. You are certainly a dishonest group of people, there is no doubt about that.
In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. So in contrast to the lie not only have I NOT done what you liars claim, but I have done the opposite and gone into an explanation about how they DO communicate. So you tell a blatant and contemptible lie about me that I in no way deserve to have told, and now you're probably insulted that I pointed out what you've done. A pretty low life group of folks we have here, apparently. You lie about me and then get insulted because I point your lies out. How much lower can you get in a discussion forum? Making up MORE lies will just be more of the same bottom of the barrel sort of dishonesty...
It being a stupidly blatant lie certainly makes it a lie, and now we see you wanting to repeat it too. You are certainly a dishonest group of people, there is no doubt about that.
In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. So in contrast to the lie not only have I NOT done what you liars claim, but I have done the opposite and gone into an explanation about how they DO communicate. So you tell a blatant and contemptible lie about me that I in no way deserve to have told, and now you're probably insulted that I pointed out what you've done. A pretty low life group of folks we have here, apparently. You lie about me and then get insulted because I point your lies out. How much lower can you get in a discussion forum? Making up MORE lies will just be more of the same bottom of the barrel sort of dishonesty...
What... are you 12?
It's hard to believe you are an adult.. assuming you are.
What part of ...
What part of ...
You saying that it's a lie does not make it one
don't you understand?
Sheesh.. ok.. let's do it your way for a sec...
You are just a lying liar who lies a lot by lying to people in a dishonest lying way so shut your lying face you liar.
OK.. pretty childish so far.
No I didn't ... it was simply not germane to the argument. All you are doing is arguing semantics even though I have provided dictionary definitions to bear out that language can be defined as communication such as animals use.
From what I can see however, you seem to be writing your own dictionary. Make sure to keep us apprised on how that is going.
It's hard to believe you are an adult.. assuming you are.
QUOTE
It being a stupidly blatant lie certainly makes it a lie, and now we see you wanting to repeat it too. You are certainly a dishonest group of people, there is no doubt about that.
What part of ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It being a stupidly blatant lie certainly makes it a lie, and now we see you wanting to repeat it too. You are certainly a dishonest group of people, there is no doubt about that. |
What part of ...
You saying that it's a lie does not make it one
don't you understand?
Sheesh.. ok.. let's do it your way for a sec...
You are just a lying liar who lies a lot by lying to people in a dishonest lying way so shut your lying face you liar.
OK.. pretty childish so far.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 27 2009, 09:07 PM)
It being a stupidly blatant lie certainly makes it a lie, and now we see you wanting to repeat it too. You are certainly a dishonest group of people, there is no doubt about that.
In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. So in contrast to the lie not only have I NOT done what you liars claim, but I have done the opposite and gone into an explanation about how they DO communicate. So you tell a blatant and contemptible lie about me that I in no way deserve to have told, and now you're probably insulted that I pointed out what you've done. A pretty low life group of folks we have here, apparently. You lie about me and then get insulted because I point your lies out. How much lower can you get in a discussion forum? Making up MORE lies will just be more of the same bottom of the barrel sort of dishonesty...
Here is proof that nopEda is a liar.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=418575
not to mention the number of words he has distorted
1) God
2) Alien
3) If
4) Language
In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. So in contrast to the lie not only have I NOT done what you liars claim, but I have done the opposite and gone into an explanation about how they DO communicate. So you tell a blatant and contemptible lie about me that I in no way deserve to have told, and now you're probably insulted that I pointed out what you've done. A pretty low life group of folks we have here, apparently. You lie about me and then get insulted because I point your lies out. How much lower can you get in a discussion forum? Making up MORE lies will just be more of the same bottom of the barrel sort of dishonesty...
Here is proof that nopEda is a liar.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=418575
not to mention the number of words he has distorted
1) God
2) Alien
3) If
4) Language
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 27 2009, 03:43 PM)
What part
You dishonestly and deliberately snipped the part where I pointed out the fact that: In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. You people are an amazingly dishonest group, that is for sure!
That brings up a hilarious idea: Since you are stupid enough to tell such blatant lies, could you also somehow be stupid enough to think I believe them?
You dishonestly and deliberately snipped the part where I pointed out the fact that: In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. You people are an amazingly dishonest group, that is for sure!
That brings up a hilarious idea: Since you are stupid enough to tell such blatant lies, could you also somehow be stupid enough to think I believe them?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 27 2009, 05:49 PM)
You dishonestly and deliberately snipped the part where I pointed out the fact that: In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language. You people are an amazingly dishonest group, that is for sure! That brings up a hilarious idea: Since you are stupid enough to tell such blatant lies, could you also somehow be stupid enough to think I believe them?
Pointing out your ignorance is not lieing.
Orcas have organized hunting. Several species do. This requires varius members being in the right place at the right time. That takes communication beyond simple signals.
And Vkamath, you forgot to add Faith to your list.
That brings up a hilarious idea: Since you are stupid enough to tell such blatant lies, could you also somehow be stupid enough to think I believe them? Pointing out your ignorance is not lieing.
Orcas have organized hunting. Several species do. This requires varius members being in the right place at the right time. That takes communication beyond simple signals.
And Vkamath, you forgot to add Faith to your list.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 27 2009, 11:45 PM)
And Vkamath, you forgot to add Faith to your list.
Oops...there are so many its a little hard to keep track.
1) God
2) Alien
3) If
4) Language
5) Faith
Oops...there are so many its a little hard to keep track.
1) God
2) Alien
3) If
4) Language
5) Faith
If I may suggest:
6) Realistically
6) Realistically
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 28 2009, 12:30 AM)
If I may suggest:
6) Realistically
That one should be at the top of the list, not that the other words are in any specific order.
The somewhat comprehensive list of nopEda word distortions -
1) Realistically
2) God
3) Alien
4) If
5) Language
6) Faith
6) Realistically
That one should be at the top of the list, not that the other words are in any specific order.
The somewhat comprehensive list of nopEda word distortions -
1) Realistically
2) God
3) Alien
4) If
5) Language
6) Faith
QUOTE
You dishonestly and deliberately snipped the part where I pointed out the fact that: In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language.
No I didn't ... it was simply not germane to the argument. All you are doing is arguing semantics even though I have provided dictionary definitions to bear out that language can be defined as communication such as animals use.
From what I can see however, you seem to be writing your own dictionary. Make sure to keep us apprised on how that is going.
Realistically, one could read Victor J. Stenger's 'GOD: The Failed Hypothesis' in which he looks everywhere for any effect of the supernatural, but only ever finds the natural.
Additionally, one might consider that causes beneath causes for design must eventually end with the causeless chaos, such as that we see coming out of the quantum realm. This is just as we expect, for there would never have been a prior point for the eternal causeless to have been defined with even any kind of order, much less the perfect order of God.
Additionally, one might consider that causes beneath causes for design must eventually end with the causeless chaos, such as that we see coming out of the quantum realm. This is just as we expect, for there would never have been a prior point for the eternal causeless to have been defined with even any kind of order, much less the perfect order of God.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 27 2009, 06:15 PM)
Pointing out your ignorance is not lieing.
Orcas have organized hunting. Several species do. This requires varius members being in the right place at the right time. That takes communication beyond simple signals.
Dogs, wolves and birds to similar things, so do you think they all have language?
Why in the FU*K are you people so desperate to believe animals have language even though they don't? That part makes no sense at all. To attack me because I'm the enemy does make sense, but to be willing to cling to such idiocy just to oppose me? To cling to the stupid side, just so you can be on the opposite one? PATHETIC!
One day while working in a restaurant one of the patrons who knew I raised chickens said something like: 'Your chickens love you you know.' I didn't have to believe her, especially since I know they did not love me. I doubt they even liked me. I don't know if I believe chickens are even capable of love, but maybe. They don't have a general love for each other, that's for sure. But roosters may sometimes feel love for certain hens, and hens may sometimes feel love for their roosters...I've seen evidence that may be the case. And mother hens may feel love for their chicks for a while.
Another person one day said something like: 'They understand everything you say you know.'
No, I do NOT! know that, and disbelieved it totally and completely.
Orcas have organized hunting. Several species do. This requires varius members being in the right place at the right time. That takes communication beyond simple signals.
Dogs, wolves and birds to similar things, so do you think they all have language?
Why in the FU*K are you people so desperate to believe animals have language even though they don't? That part makes no sense at all. To attack me because I'm the enemy does make sense, but to be willing to cling to such idiocy just to oppose me? To cling to the stupid side, just so you can be on the opposite one? PATHETIC!
One day while working in a restaurant one of the patrons who knew I raised chickens said something like: 'Your chickens love you you know.' I didn't have to believe her, especially since I know they did not love me. I doubt they even liked me. I don't know if I believe chickens are even capable of love, but maybe. They don't have a general love for each other, that's for sure. But roosters may sometimes feel love for certain hens, and hens may sometimes feel love for their roosters...I've seen evidence that may be the case. And mother hens may feel love for their chicks for a while.
Another person one day said something like: 'They understand everything you say you know.'
No, I do NOT! know that, and disbelieved it totally and completely.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 27 2009, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You dishonestly and deliberately snipped the part where I pointed out the fact that: In contrast to the contemptible lie, I have pointed out that animals communicate through signals even though they don't have language.
No I didn't
Who is the person that did it then, do you know?
No I didn't
Who is the person that did it then, do you know?
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 27 2009, 09:11 PM)
Realistically, one could read Victor J. Stenger's 'GOD: The Failed Hypothesis' in which he looks everywhere for any effect of the supernatural, but only ever finds the natural.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 27 2009, 07:00 PM)
If I may suggest:
6) Realistically
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.
6) Realistically
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.
Hi nopEda,
I'm pretty much agreeing with you:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
True, simplicity is ever found below; higher complexity is found ‘above’, such as a more highly evolved 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.
Yes; as a wish of the imagination and out of a need to feel special.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
True; we have searched high and low, near and far, but have only ever found the natural and never the supernatural.
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.
Yes, this is an ‘out’ for his not showing up.
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.
True, self-contradictory.
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.
Yes, God and not-God are not equiprobable. Recently, though, Victor Santer has disproved God, so now there is certainty over that one in a zillion chance.
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.
These ungrounded beliefs in God are only a consideration upheld in the thin air by the believer.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
They wan what they want, their minds too much doing the function of filling in the gap of what they can’t know.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually absurdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Not understood as written. Not sure that atheists go against themselves.
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.
God is not needed.
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.
One must not preach “God did it”, but to be fair should preach that this is only a theory. It is unfair to lie and say that it is a truth.
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.
The invisible is still the invisible, not matter what the proposition.
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.
Yes, look to the more evolved or to the future for ‘gods’, not to the past or the beginning where simplicity reigns.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
Human built this image of the strict Father in the image of the human family.
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.
God must have made them wrong since their is no firmament, no Earth being in the center, no immutable forms, etc.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
He would have to.
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.
Yes, nothing but the natural has ever been found. Extraordinary claims of souls and such have no evidence, much less an extraordinary evidence. Faith in belief in the invisible unknown, admitting that there is no basis.
Other notes:
The Potential or near ‘nothing’ of the quantum realm is shown to be an indeterminate disorder of chaos by science, with no hidden variables within, matches what we would also realize through thought: that it can't be a system, a mind, a design or a designer in itself, for there is no prior time for the eternal causeless itself to have been designed as there is neither anything before it nor any more fundamental parts to make it of nor anything or any way to design it, especially all the more for the ultimate complexity of the One Being. Complexity is found at higher scales, not at the original tiny scale. Look up and to the future, not down and to the past.
So, no Great Being, but perhaps a smart alien somewhere, no effects of which are seen, though.
I'm pretty much agreeing with you:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
True, simplicity is ever found below; higher complexity is found ‘above’, such as a more highly evolved 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.
Yes; as a wish of the imagination and out of a need to feel special.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
True; we have searched high and low, near and far, but have only ever found the natural and never the supernatural.
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.
Yes, this is an ‘out’ for his not showing up.
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.
True, self-contradictory.
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.
Yes, God and not-God are not equiprobable. Recently, though, Victor Santer has disproved God, so now there is certainty over that one in a zillion chance.
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.
These ungrounded beliefs in God are only a consideration upheld in the thin air by the believer.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
They wan what they want, their minds too much doing the function of filling in the gap of what they can’t know.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually absurdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Not understood as written. Not sure that atheists go against themselves.
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.
God is not needed.
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.
One must not preach “God did it”, but to be fair should preach that this is only a theory. It is unfair to lie and say that it is a truth.
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.
The invisible is still the invisible, not matter what the proposition.
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.
Yes, look to the more evolved or to the future for ‘gods’, not to the past or the beginning where simplicity reigns.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
Human built this image of the strict Father in the image of the human family.
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.
God must have made them wrong since their is no firmament, no Earth being in the center, no immutable forms, etc.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
He would have to.
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.
Yes, nothing but the natural has ever been found. Extraordinary claims of souls and such have no evidence, much less an extraordinary evidence. Faith in belief in the invisible unknown, admitting that there is no basis.
Other notes:
The Potential or near ‘nothing’ of the quantum realm is shown to be an indeterminate disorder of chaos by science, with no hidden variables within, matches what we would also realize through thought: that it can't be a system, a mind, a design or a designer in itself, for there is no prior time for the eternal causeless itself to have been designed as there is neither anything before it nor any more fundamental parts to make it of nor anything or any way to design it, especially all the more for the ultimate complexity of the One Being. Complexity is found at higher scales, not at the original tiny scale. Look up and to the future, not down and to the past.
So, no Great Being, but perhaps a smart alien somewhere, no effects of which are seen, though.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 29 2009, 08:34 PM)
Hi nopEda,
I'm pretty much agreeing with you:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
True, simplicity is ever found below; higher complexity is found ‘above’, such as a more highly evolved alien.
Whether or not that's always true, it seems it should always be true that a being couldn't be native to a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years after the being came into existence.
I'm pretty much agreeing with you:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
True, simplicity is ever found below; higher complexity is found ‘above’, such as a more highly evolved alien.
Whether or not that's always true, it seems it should always be true that a being couldn't be native to a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years after the being came into existence.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
Yes; as a wish of the imagination and out of a need to feel special.
Just as there are varying beliefs about the sun and moon they don't change the reality, and the same would be true of God.
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Yes; as a wish of the imagination and out of a need to feel special.
Just as there are varying beliefs about the sun and moon they don't change the reality, and the same would be true of God.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
True; we have searched high and low, near and far, but have only ever found the natural and never the supernatural.
We have barely even crawled into our own star system. Even so anything that happens would be natural even if it seems otherwise from our pov.
would be natural for them.
True; we have searched high and low, near and far, but have only ever found the natural and never the supernatural.
We have barely even crawled into our own star system. Even so anything that happens would be natural even if it seems otherwise from our pov.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
Yes, this is an ‘out’ for his not showing up.
It's an obvious fact that a surprisingly high percentage of people appear unable to appreciate, or possibly even comprehend.
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Yes, this is an ‘out’ for his not showing up.
It's an obvious fact that a surprisingly high percentage of people appear unable to appreciate, or possibly even comprehend.QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
True, self-contradictory.
Agreed
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
True, self-contradictory.
Agreed
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
Yes, God and not-God are not equiprobable. Recently, though, Victor Santer has disproved God
How do you think he did that?
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Yes, God and not-God are not equiprobable. Recently, though, Victor Santer has disproved God
How do you think he did that?QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
These ungrounded beliefs in God are only a consideration upheld in the thin air by the believer.
That issue is outside of your mental safety zone.
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
These ungrounded beliefs in God are only a consideration upheld in the thin air by the believer.
That issue is outside of your mental safety zone.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
They wan what they want, their minds too much doing the function of filling in the gap of what they can’t know.
It seems more to me like they often want to think they're the only ones who are right and will enjoy a good afterlife.
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
They wan what they want, their minds too much doing the function of filling in the gap of what they can’t know.
It seems more to me like they often want to think they're the only ones who are right and will enjoy a good afterlife.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually absurdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Not understood as written. Not sure that atheists go against themselves.
People who claim to be strong atheists while at the same time want to deny the faith necessary in order to be one are fooling themselves, or at least trying to.
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Not understood as written. Not sure that atheists go against themselves.
People who claim to be strong atheists while at the same time want to deny the faith necessary in order to be one are fooling themselves, or at least trying to.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
God is not needed.
Agreed. That does nothing to eliminate him if he exists, however.
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
God is not needed.
Agreed. That does nothing to eliminate him if he exists, however.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
One must not preach “God did it”, but to be fair should preach that this is only a theory. It is unfair to lie and say that it is a truth.
If God exists it's more than likely that he lets some people know it, but if he does not exist there's no way anyone could know that.
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
One must not preach “God did it”, but to be fair should preach that this is only a theory. It is unfair to lie and say that it is a truth.
If God exists it's more than likely that he lets some people know it, but if he does not exist there's no way anyone could know that.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
The invisible is still the invisible, not matter what the proposition.
It's unrealistic to think about things we know are untrue and those we don't in the same way.
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.
The invisible is still the invisible, not matter what the proposition.
It's unrealistic to think about things we know are untrue and those we don't in the same way.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
Yes, look to the more evolved or to the future for ‘gods’, not to the past or the beginning where simplicity reigns.
It sounds like you put your faith in the idea that the universe is not going through cycles of expansion and contraction.
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Yes, look to the more evolved or to the future for ‘gods’, not to the past or the beginning where simplicity reigns.
It sounds like you put your faith in the idea that the universe is not going through cycles of expansion and contraction.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
Human built this image of the strict Father in the image of the human family.
Unless it's the other way around of course.
particular body, form, or gender.
Human built this image of the strict Father in the image of the human family.
Unless it's the other way around of course.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
God must have made them wrong since their is no firmament, no Earth being in the center, no immutable forms, etc.
I didn't say we understand why they include what they do yet.
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
God must have made them wrong since their is no firmament, no Earth being in the center, no immutable forms, etc.
I didn't say we understand why they include what they do yet.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the
evolutionary method of creation.
He would have to.
I'm not totally convinced of that, but I feel pretty confident that he did.
evolutionary method of creation.
He would have to.
I'm not totally convinced of that, but I feel pretty confident that he did.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
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.
Yes, nothing but the natural has ever been found. Extraordinary claims of souls and such have no evidence, much less an extraordinary evidence. Faith in belief in the invisible unknown, admitting that there is no basis.
There is basis or no one would believe it.
they are most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Yes, nothing but the natural has ever been found. Extraordinary claims of souls and such have no evidence, much less an extraordinary evidence. Faith in belief in the invisible unknown, admitting that there is no basis.
There is basis or no one would believe it.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
Other notes:
The Potential or near ‘nothing’ of the quantum realm is shown to be an indeterminate disorder of chaos by science, with no hidden variables within, matches what we would also realize through thought: that it can't be a system, a mind, a design or a designer in itself, for there is no prior time for the eternal causeless itself to have been designed as there is neither anything before it nor any more fundamental parts to make it of nor anything or any way to design it, especially all the more for the ultimate complexity of the One Being. Complexity is found at higher scales, not at the original tiny scale. Look up and to the future, not down and to the past.
The only way I can realistically conceive of the possibility of God's existence is if the universe is going through cycles...
The Potential or near ‘nothing’ of the quantum realm is shown to be an indeterminate disorder of chaos by science, with no hidden variables within, matches what we would also realize through thought: that it can't be a system, a mind, a design or a designer in itself, for there is no prior time for the eternal causeless itself to have been designed as there is neither anything before it nor any more fundamental parts to make it of nor anything or any way to design it, especially all the more for the ultimate complexity of the One Being. Complexity is found at higher scales, not at the original tiny scale. Look up and to the future, not down and to the past.
The only way I can realistically conceive of the possibility of God's existence is if the universe is going through cycles...
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 3 2009, 01:10 PM)
The only way I can realistically conceive of the possibility of God's existence is if the universe is going through cycles...
Why is that?
Why is that?
Whether or not that's always true, it seems it should always be true that a being couldn't be native to a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years after the being came into existence.
The alien would have to be from somewhere else, but an alien is not what we mean by 'God'.
How do you think he did that?
I made two typos: 1) His name is Victor Stenger 2) The disproof is intended to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I posted some of it in the 'existence' thread. Senger looks everywhere for the fingerprint of the Theity who is said to be everywhere and intervene everywhere, but finds no supernatural happenings. At worst it still provides information to use to counter some Theist arguments.
People who claim to be strong atheists while at the same time want to deny the faith necessary in order to be one are fooling themselves, or at least trying to.
Evidently they go by probability, such as we do with any unknown.
It sounds like you put your faith in the idea that the universe is not going through cycles of expansion and contraction.
There could be a cyclical universe, such as detailed in 'Endless Universe', where branes collide, but then there still may have been a first universe to explain.
There is basis or no one would believe it.
We'll have to look into the basis; it could be that natural selection induced a belief in nature spirits.
Note: My same old 'disproof' thought stated in much the same way.
To any believer: You are saying that an infinite Design and Order such as the Creator can just be sitting around all DESIGNED and made, with no cause, having had no DESIGNER. That is a thought experiment which is not logical. It even reaches for the most complex design that there ever could be, and not something infinitely simpler, as I propose.
My thought experiment is logical, saying that something without cause can thus have no design or order, due to no designer being able to come before it. Plus, my thought is borne out by the fact that the causeless quantum level has no order; in fact, none at all, as it is a random indeterminate chaos of maximum disorder, whereas yours has a Perfect Order.
The alien would have to be from somewhere else, but an alien is not what we mean by 'God'.
How do you think he did that?
I made two typos: 1) His name is Victor Stenger 2) The disproof is intended to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I posted some of it in the 'existence' thread. Senger looks everywhere for the fingerprint of the Theity who is said to be everywhere and intervene everywhere, but finds no supernatural happenings. At worst it still provides information to use to counter some Theist arguments.
People who claim to be strong atheists while at the same time want to deny the faith necessary in order to be one are fooling themselves, or at least trying to.
Evidently they go by probability, such as we do with any unknown.
It sounds like you put your faith in the idea that the universe is not going through cycles of expansion and contraction.
There could be a cyclical universe, such as detailed in 'Endless Universe', where branes collide, but then there still may have been a first universe to explain.
There is basis or no one would believe it.
We'll have to look into the basis; it could be that natural selection induced a belief in nature spirits.
Note: My same old 'disproof' thought stated in much the same way.
To any believer: You are saying that an infinite Design and Order such as the Creator can just be sitting around all DESIGNED and made, with no cause, having had no DESIGNER. That is a thought experiment which is not logical. It even reaches for the most complex design that there ever could be, and not something infinitely simpler, as I propose.
My thought experiment is logical, saying that something without cause can thus have no design or order, due to no designer being able to come before it. Plus, my thought is borne out by the fact that the causeless quantum level has no order; in fact, none at all, as it is a random indeterminate chaos of maximum disorder, whereas yours has a Perfect Order.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jul 3 2009, 09:59 PM)
To any believer: You are saying that an infinite Design and Order such as the Creator can just be sitting around all DESIGNED and made, with no cause, having had no DESIGNER. That is a thought experiment which is not logical. It even reaches for the most complex design that there ever could be, and not something infinitely simpler, as I propose.
And God and His works must be logical to man?
And God and His works must be logical to man?
Yes, in the case of logic claiming that a design needs a Designer/Creator but then suddenly abandoning the logic by not carrying it through to that the design of the Designer must require a further DESIGNER/CREATOR. Plus, if the fundamental and eternal causeless Designer had to always have been, then when was it designed and ordered in the first place, for there never was a first place. Also, beyond the 'no first place' stuff, what has no cause has no reason for its design. Additionally, the quantum level fits the bill as the causeless case that is expected: complete disorder, which is a bonus, whereas no evidence fits any bill for the claim of God.
Self-contradiction is the best way to fully disprove an idea.
Self-contradiction is the best way to fully disprove an idea.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jul 4 2009, 03:34 AM)
quantum level fits the bill as the causeless case that is expected: complete disorder.
And that is more logical.
And that is more logical.
True. Plus we've observed the quantum randomness and proved that there are no hidden variables (Alain Aspect's experiments using John Bell's methods.)
I like to think the following phrase, it gives me strength when i most need it.
Philippians 4:4 "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petititon, with thanksgiving present your request to God. And the peace of God, which transcends, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."
Smile
Philippians 4:4 "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petititon, with thanksgiving present your request to God. And the peace of God, which transcends, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."
Smile
The Philippians 4:4 does give the peace of the thought of being protected.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jul 4 2009, 04:11 AM)
True. Plus we've observed the quantum randomness and proved that there are no hidden variables (Alain Aspect's experiments using John Bell's methods.)
It seems at the quantum level probability breaks down to a 50:50 chance.
This would make things seem purely random to us but probably not to a God who knows the outcome.
It seems at the quantum level probability breaks down to a 50:50 chance.
This would make things seem purely random to us but probably not to a God who knows the outcome.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 4 2009, 01:09 AM)
Why is that?
Well, that would be if he created the universe, or had influence over it. Then he would have come into existence during a previous cycle and would be having whatever influence over future ones. He could even be the cause of the cycling.
If he didn't really have influence over the whole universe but only on parts of it he could still be God imo, and then also could have come into existence sometime during this progression whether there's any cycling to it or not. I believe if God exists he developed somewhere along the way...I don't believe he existed before the universe if he exists at all.
Well, that would be if he created the universe, or had influence over it. Then he would have come into existence during a previous cycle and would be having whatever influence over future ones. He could even be the cause of the cycling.
If he didn't really have influence over the whole universe but only on parts of it he could still be God imo, and then also could have come into existence sometime during this progression whether there's any cycling to it or not. I believe if God exists he developed somewhere along the way...I don't believe he existed before the universe if he exists at all.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jul 4 2009, 01:59 AM)
Whether or not that's always true, it seems it should always be true that a being couldn't be native to a planet that didn't even exist until billions of years after the being came into existence.
The alien would have to be from somewhere else, but an alien is not what we mean by 'God'.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
The alien would have to be from somewhere else, but an alien is not what we mean by 'God'.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
How do you think he did that?
I made two typos: 1) His name is Victor Stenger 2) The disproof is intended to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I posted some of it in the 'existence' thread. Senger looks everywhere for the fingerprint of the Theity who is said to be everywhere and intervene everywhere, but finds no supernatural happenings. At worst it still provides information to use to counter some Theist arguments.
It's not proof of much of anything other than something we already know, which is that God doesn't leave much proof of his existence lying around.
I made two typos: 1) His name is Victor Stenger 2) The disproof is intended to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I posted some of it in the 'existence' thread. Senger looks everywhere for the fingerprint of the Theity who is said to be everywhere and intervene everywhere, but finds no supernatural happenings. At worst it still provides information to use to counter some Theist arguments.
It's not proof of much of anything other than something we already know, which is that God doesn't leave much proof of his existence lying around.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
People who claim to be strong atheists while at the same time want to deny the faith necessary in order to be one are fooling themselves, or at least trying to.
Evidently they go by probability, such as we do with any unknown.
They deny their faith that what they consider to be the probability is correct.
Evidently they go by probability, such as we do with any unknown.
They deny their faith that what they consider to be the probability is correct.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
It sounds like you put your faith in the idea that the universe is not going through cycles of expansion and contraction.
There could be a cyclical universe, such as detailed in 'Endless Universe', where branes collide, but then there still may have been a first universe to explain.
I take it for granted that would be the case.
There could be a cyclical universe, such as detailed in 'Endless Universe', where branes collide, but then there still may have been a first universe to explain.
I take it for granted that would be the case.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
There is basis or no one would believe it.
We'll have to look into the basis; it could be that natural selection induced a belief in nature spirits.
I don't doubt that man would have created God if he does not exist. I also don't doubt God would have had some contact with some humans if he does exist.
We'll have to look into the basis; it could be that natural selection induced a belief in nature spirits.
I don't doubt that man would have created God if he does not exist. I also don't doubt God would have had some contact with some humans if he does exist.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+)
Note: My same old 'disproof' thought stated in much the same way.
To any believer: You are saying that an infinite Design and Order such as the Creator can just be sitting around all DESIGNED and made, with no cause, having had no DESIGNER.
I believe the universe came first, even if God does exist.
To any believer: You are saying that an infinite Design and Order such as the Creator can just be sitting around all DESIGNED and made, with no cause, having had no DESIGNER.
I believe the universe came first, even if God does exist.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 4 2009, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The only way I can realistically conceive of the possibility of God's existence is if the universe is going through cycles...
Why is that?
Well, the only way I can conceive of a God of the entire universe would be if it's going through cycles, and that he developed in a previous cycle but now has influence over them. If there are gods that developed during this cycle, I don't see how any of them could be the God of the entire universe.
Why is that?
Well, the only way I can conceive of a God of the entire universe would be if it's going through cycles, and that he developed in a previous cycle but now has influence over them. If there are gods that developed during this cycle, I don't see how any of them could be the God of the entire universe.
Even if they evolved during a previous cycle, they obviously didn't create the universe... so they still don't pass the audition.
BTW - This is about the stupidest premise for a thread I have ever seen.
BTW - This is about the stupidest premise for a thread I have ever seen.
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us? Anything is possible. All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
QUOTE (Alaxir Zoa+Sep 30 2009, 07:16 AM)
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us? Anything is possible. All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
So everything that is POSSIBLE is TRUE??
So everything that is POSSIBLE is TRUE??
QUOTE (Alaxir Zoa+Sep 30 2009, 01:46 AM)
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us?
Well, the design is crap - any supposed 'higher life form' would've made us infinitely better.
It is highly likely, we ourselves will eventually modify our fucked-up genetic garbage into something half-decent.
And my killer clincher here ....... is your dear self. Unless the creator was actually some frightfully concussed muttonheaded cretin with stupefyingly chronic brain lesions - and as such, simply wouldn't qualify as a superior being, right?
Game over - you lose.
Well, the design is crap - any supposed 'higher life form' would've made us infinitely better.
It is highly likely, we ourselves will eventually modify our fucked-up genetic garbage into something half-decent.
And my killer clincher here ....... is your dear self. Unless the creator was actually some frightfully concussed muttonheaded cretin with stupefyingly chronic brain lesions - and as such, simply wouldn't qualify as a superior being, right?
Game over - you lose.
Alaxir Zoa
Nothing, but then, I have nothing against unicorns either.
Nothing, but then, I have nothing against unicorns either.
All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
You confuse open with empty and shouldn't truth have a closer relationship with facts?
Grumpy
Because the pursuit of answers don't include fictional propositions. Fred said it best ... but allow me to further add:
There are literally hundreds of characteristics throughout the biological kingdom that surpass virtually any found in humans. Pick any animal you want ... and I can name something about them that is superior to a comparable characteristic in humans. Lets just look at other mammals eh? Apes are stronger, cats have superior vision, dogs have a superior sense of smell. Bears have superior metabolism adaptations ... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Lowly amphibians can regenerate lost limbs. Why would some higher level being give us that trait? What? They didn't foresee the need? Any amputee that believes in ANY higher being/creator is a TOTAL FOOL.
Because the pursuit of answers don't include fictional propositions. Fred said it best ... but allow me to further add:
There are literally hundreds of characteristics throughout the biological kingdom that surpass virtually any found in humans. Pick any animal you want ... and I can name something about them that is superior to a comparable characteristic in humans. Lets just look at other mammals eh? Apes are stronger, cats have superior vision, dogs have a superior sense of smell. Bears have superior metabolism adaptations ... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Lowly amphibians can regenerate lost limbs. Why would some higher level being give us that trait? What? They didn't foresee the need? Any amputee that believes in ANY higher being/creator is a TOTAL FOOL.
Anything is possible.
Wrong ...
"Anything" isn't possible. It's a ridiculous phrase used to justify ridiculous assertions.
An "open mind" does not mean considering the asinine.
Sheesh... just because an animal has one horn doesn't make it a unicorn.
A medieval unicorn had the body of a horse, a s s (the donkey, not the rear end you stupid forum editing system), or goat, cloven feet and the tail of a lion. It has quite a complicated origin, being mentioned in ancient Greece. They also knew what a rhinoceros was, so it's unlikely they mistook one for the other.
The concept is also found independently in a number of cultures, for example the Qilin of China. The idea being of a creature, like a horse or a deer, who's existence is symbolic of purity and grace.
Ever try to sooth a rhinoceros with a virgin?
QUOTE
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us?
Nothing, but then, I have nothing against unicorns either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us? |
Nothing, but then, I have nothing against unicorns either.
All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
You confuse open with empty and shouldn't truth have a closer relationship with facts?
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 30 2009, 09:56 AM)
Alaxir Zoa
Nothing, but then, I have nothing against unicorns either.
You confuse open with empty and shouldn't truth have a closer relationship with facts?
Grumpy
Nothing, but then, I have nothing against unicorns either.
You confuse open with empty and shouldn't truth have a closer relationship with facts?
Grumpy
Actually unicorns existed -- Elasmotherium,or Indian Rhinoceros singled horned; and sea animals from China. So you might not want to use that one.
QUOTE
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us?
Because the pursuit of answers don't include fictional propositions. Fred said it best ... but allow me to further add:
There are literally hundreds of characteristics throughout the biological kingdom that surpass virtually any found in humans. Pick any animal you want ... and I can name something about them that is superior to a comparable characteristic in humans. Lets just look at other mammals eh? Apes are stronger, cats have superior vision, dogs have a superior sense of smell. Bears have superior metabolism adaptations ... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Lowly amphibians can regenerate lost limbs. Why would some higher level being give us that trait? What? They didn't foresee the need? Any amputee that believes in ANY higher being/creator is a TOTAL FOOL.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us? |
Because the pursuit of answers don't include fictional propositions. Fred said it best ... but allow me to further add:
There are literally hundreds of characteristics throughout the biological kingdom that surpass virtually any found in humans. Pick any animal you want ... and I can name something about them that is superior to a comparable characteristic in humans. Lets just look at other mammals eh? Apes are stronger, cats have superior vision, dogs have a superior sense of smell. Bears have superior metabolism adaptations ... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Lowly amphibians can regenerate lost limbs. Why would some higher level being give us that trait? What? They didn't foresee the need? Any amputee that believes in ANY higher being/creator is a TOTAL FOOL.
Anything is possible.
Wrong ...
"Anything" isn't possible. It's a ridiculous phrase used to justify ridiculous assertions.
QUOTE
All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
An "open mind" does not mean considering the asinine.
Bravo Dr Fred A Wolf, Grumpy , uaafanblog and others! 
Maybe we should steer Alaxir Zoa to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
But perhaps a better one to shoot down other specious, but widely used "irreducible complexity" issues would be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Eye
The very title of this thread is an oxymoron!
, uaafanblog and others! Maybe we should steer Alaxir Zoa to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
But perhaps a better one to shoot down other specious, but widely used "irreducible complexity" issues would be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Eye
The very title of this thread is an oxymoron!
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 6 2009, 09:46 PM)
Actually unicorns existed -- Elasmotherium,or Indian Rhinoceros singled horned; and sea animals from China. So you might not want to use that one.
If you'll accept a rhino as a unicorn, then can I assume you're a prime candiate for accepting Nopeda's aliens as god?
If you'll accept a rhino as a unicorn, then can I assume you're a prime candiate for accepting Nopeda's aliens as god?
QUOTE
Actually unicorns existed -- Elasmotherium,or Indian Rhinoceros singled horned; and sea animals from China.
Sheesh... just because an animal has one horn doesn't make it a unicorn.
A medieval unicorn had the body of a horse, a s s (the donkey, not the rear end you stupid forum editing system), or goat, cloven feet and the tail of a lion. It has quite a complicated origin, being mentioned in ancient Greece. They also knew what a rhinoceros was, so it's unlikely they mistook one for the other.
The concept is also found independently in a number of cultures, for example the Qilin of China. The idea being of a creature, like a horse or a deer, who's existence is symbolic of purity and grace.
Ever try to sooth a rhinoceros with a virgin?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Sep 28 2009, 07:04 PM)
Even if they evolved during a previous cycle, they obviously didn't create the universe... so they still don't pass the audition.
Even if they just had influence over things that happened since the big bang that could be good enough for me. This is on the list:
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.
Maybe I should add something addressing the fact that it's more likely that the universe came into existence allowing for the origin of gods, than it is that a God came into existence allowing for the origin of everything else.
Even if they just had influence over things that happened since the big bang that could be good enough for me. This is on the list:
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.
Maybe I should add something addressing the fact that it's more likely that the universe came into existence allowing for the origin of gods, than it is that a God came into existence allowing for the origin of everything else.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
BTW - This is about the stupidest premise for a thread I have ever seen.
I seriously doubt that. Actually this is an excellent thing to try to think about in a supposedly physics related forum about the possibility of some sort of creator. Maybe you can't quite connect the dots
, but they're there.
I seriously doubt that. Actually this is an excellent thing to try to think about in a supposedly physics related forum about the possibility of some sort of creator. Maybe you can't quite connect the dots
, but they're there.
QUOTE (Alaxir Zoa+Sep 30 2009, 01:46 AM)
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us? Anything is possible. All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
Open minded seems to be the opposite of what these people are. Those who believe in God have their favorite way of thinking about him and don't want to change, and those who disbelieve are even more set in their ways and sometimes amusingly act like they know something about what God would be like if he did exist.
Open minded seems to be the opposite of what these people are. Those who believe in God have their favorite way of thinking about him and don't want to change, and those who disbelieve are even more set in their ways and sometimes amusingly act like they know something about what God would be like if he did exist.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Sep 30 2009, 09:15 AM)
Well, the design is crap - any supposed 'higher life form' would've made us infinitely better.
The whole thing is still developing. Give it another million years and then tell us what you think then.
The whole thing is still developing. Give it another million years and then tell us what you think then.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+)
It is highly likely, we ourselves will eventually modify our fucked-up genetic garbage into something half-decent.
If we do and God exists, then we must take it for granted that was part of his plan.
Most unintentionally ironic statement from NopEda yet.
Physfan
If we do and God exists, then we must take it for granted that was part of his plan.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+)
And my killer clincher here ....... is your dear self. Unless the creator was actually some frightfully concussed muttonheaded cretin with stupefyingly chronic brain lesions - and as such, simply wouldn't qualify as a superior being, right?
Game over - you lose.
Not yet. Now it's time for you to explain how you would have done it better and more efficiently. Take it from the big bang on and explain how you would have done it better. If you can't THEN the game is over and YOU lose. Only if you can demonstrate your own superiority can you win . It's amusing you didn't know that to begin with.
Game over - you lose.
Not yet. Now it's time for you to explain how you would have done it better and more efficiently. Take it from the big bang on and explain how you would have done it better. If you can't THEN the game is over and YOU lose. Only if you can demonstrate your own superiority can you win
. It's amusing you didn't know that to begin with.
QUOTE
and sometimes amusingly act like they know something about what God would be like if he did exist.
Most unintentionally ironic statement from NopEda yet.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
sometimes amusingly act like they know something about what God would be like if he did exist.
You are the one claiming God is an Alien.
.. you are ridiculous by your own logic.
You are the one claiming God is an Alien.
.. you are ridiculous by your own logic.
QUOTE
What do you guys have against the idea of higher level beings that made us? Anything is possible. All I can tell you is have an open mind to see the truth.
Because it is the "god" premise and it is bullsh1t.Physfan
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 8 2009, 04:12 AM)
Actually this is an excellent thing to try to think about in a supposedly physics related forum about the possibility of some sort of creator. Maybe you can't quite connect the dots , but they're there.
Except you're not talking about a creator, you're talking about something that evolved out of the creation just like we have.
, but they're there. Except you're not talking about a creator, you're talking about something that evolved out of the creation just like we have.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 8 2009, 07:10 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
sometimes amusingly act like they know something about what God would be like if he did exist.
You are the one claiming God is an Alien.
.. you are ridiculous by your own logic.
Not really, since it's easy to understand how he could be an alien but so far between all of us we haven't been able to figure out how he could possibly be anything else .
You are the one claiming God is an Alien.
.. you are ridiculous by your own logic.
Not really, since it's easy to understand how he could be an alien but so far between all of us we haven't been able to figure out how he could possibly be anything else
.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 8 2009, 12:17 PM)
Except you're not talking about a creator, you're talking about something that evolved out of the creation just like we have.
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.
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.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 9 2009, 05:55 PM)
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.
This statement has nothing to do with your premise.
I mean, it's OBVIOUS that life originated.. can you say, "Duh"? Sure, I knew you could.
This statement has nothing to do with your premise.
I mean, it's OBVIOUS that life originated.. can you say, "Duh"? Sure, I knew you could.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 9 2009, 11:23 PM)
Not really, since it's easy to understand how he could be an alien but so far between all of us we haven't been able to figure out how he could possibly be anything else .
Yes we have. God is imaginary.
. Yes we have. God is imaginary.
nopEda-
You might enjoy this. "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson." Its the first part of a series called "All and Everything." Arrogant title for a series, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub%27s...to_His_Grandson
Tried to read it many years ago. Fortunately it was a book from a friend and I didn't have to pay for it.
You might like it though. Beelzebub is an alien describing to his grandson the Earth, people and why they are like they are.
Wait a minute, do you already know about this book? Is that why you are here?
You might enjoy this. "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson." Its the first part of a series called "All and Everything." Arrogant title for a series, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub%27s...to_His_Grandson
Tried to read it many years ago. Fortunately it was a book from a friend and I didn't have to pay for it.
You might like it though. Beelzebub is an alien describing to his grandson the Earth, people and why they are like they are.
Wait a minute, do you already know about this book? Is that why you are here?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 9 2009, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
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.
This statement has nothing to do with your premise.
It's on my list for good reason.
It's on my list for good reason.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
I mean, it's OBVIOUS that life originated..
There are those who question whether or not it could have originated on its own. You don't know whether it did so on Earth or not.
There are those who question whether or not it could have originated on its own. You don't know whether it did so on Earth or not.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 9 2009, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
so far between all of us we haven't been able to figure out how he could possibly be anything else .
. Yes we have. God is imaginary.
We've tried that one before and it looked idiotic, but let's try it again and see if it looks any less pathetic now:
If God exists God is imaginary.
Nope, it still looks just as stupidly idiotic as it did the last couple of times. So it's safe to say that between all of us we STILL haven't figured out how God could be anything other than an alien if he exists, nor have we been given any reason to put faith in the idea that he does not.
We've tried that one before and it looked idiotic, but let's try it again and see if it looks any less pathetic now:
If God exists God is imaginary.
Nope, it still looks just as stupidly idiotic
as it did the last couple of times. So it's safe to say that between all of us we STILL haven't figured out how God could be anything other than an alien if he exists, nor have we been given any reason to put faith in the idea that he does not.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 12 2009, 02:35 PM)
Nope, it still looks just as stupidly idiotic as it did the last couple of times. So it's safe to say that between all of us we STILL haven't figured out how God could be anything other than an alien if he exists, nor have we been given any reason to put faith in the idea that he does not.
You exist, therefore god cannot exist.
as it did the last couple of times. So it's safe to say that between all of us we STILL haven't figured out how God could be anything other than an alien if he exists, nor have we been given any reason to put faith in the idea that he does not. You exist, therefore god cannot exist.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 12 2009, 06:26 PM)
This statement has nothing to do with your premise.[/QUOTE]
It's on my list for good reason.
It's on my list for good reason.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
I mean, it's OBVIOUS that life originated..
There are those who question whether or not it could have originated on its own. You don't know whether it did so on Earth or not.
Unless there is a god that is external from the universe, then there is no alternative. Life originated from totally natural processes.
And if your god is part of the same natural process, then by definition - it ain't god.
There are those who question whether or not it could have originated on its own. You don't know whether it did so on Earth or not.
Unless there is a god that is external from the universe, then there is no alternative. Life originated from totally natural processes.
And if your god is part of the same natural process, then by definition - it ain't god.
QUOTE (orestis+Oct 11 2009, 06:42 AM)
nopEda-
You might enjoy this. "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson."
. . .
Beelzebub is an alien describing to his grandson the Earth, people and why they are like they are.
Wait a minute, do you already know about this book? Is that why you are here?
No I didn't know about the book. The concept does make sense though even if it wasn't really written in a true attempt to try. Angels and whatever else are not said to have been created on Earth, and if not then they would be aliens too. We only get one lifetime afawk, but Satan would have billions of people to learn from, and learn how to manipulate. If he exists, how soon would he have begun? Would he have had influence on Deanderthals too, or did he start with modern man when he originated? Or did he leave humans alone for their first 90 thousand years, and then begin his influence when they began agricultural societies and to build cities? Where do "Adam and Eve" fit in? Was Eve his first real victim?
You might enjoy this. "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson."
. . .
Beelzebub is an alien describing to his grandson the Earth, people and why they are like they are.
Wait a minute, do you already know about this book? Is that why you are here?
No I didn't know about the book. The concept does make sense though even if it wasn't really written in a true attempt to try. Angels and whatever else are not said to have been created on Earth, and if not then they would be aliens too. We only get one lifetime afawk, but Satan would have billions of people to learn from, and learn how to manipulate. If he exists, how soon would he have begun? Would he have had influence on Deanderthals too, or did he start with modern man when he originated? Or did he leave humans alone for their first 90 thousand years, and then begin his influence when they began agricultural societies and to build cities? Where do "Adam and Eve" fit in? Was Eve his first real victim?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 12 2009, 02:39 PM)
It's on my list for good reason.
Unless there is a god that is external from the universe, then there is no alternative. Life originated from totally natural processes.
And if your god is part of the same natural process, then by definition - it ain't god.
He might as well be saying: "If the Easter Bunny exists, it is almost certainly a chicken, since it lays eggs."
Unless there is a god that is external from the universe, then there is no alternative. Life originated from totally natural processes.
And if your god is part of the same natural process, then by definition - it ain't god.
He might as well be saying: "If the Easter Bunny exists, it is almost certainly a chicken, since it lays eggs."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 12 2009, 06:43 PM)
He might as well be saying: "If the Easter Bunny exists, it is almost certainly a chicken, since it lays eggs."
Or, if it's made to hit baseballs it must be made of wood or aluminum.
(during a discussion of nocturnal flying mammals.)
Or, if it's made to hit baseballs it must be made of wood or aluminum.
(during a discussion of nocturnal flying mammals.)
OR - If unicorns exist, they must be rhinos. Since rhinos only have one horn.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 12:05 AM)
If God exists God is imaginary.
You don't know what imaginary means, no surprise.
Why can't the Easter Bunny be an alien?
You don't know what imaginary means, no surprise.
Why can't the Easter Bunny be an alien?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 12 2009, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Nope, it still looks just as stupidly idiotic as it did the last couple of times. So it's safe to say that between all of us we STILL haven't figured out how God could be anything other than an alien if he exists, nor have we been given any reason to put faith in the idea that he does not.
as it did the last couple of times. So it's safe to say that between all of us we STILL haven't figured out how God could be anything other than an alien if he exists, nor have we been given any reason to put faith in the idea that he does not.You exist, therefore god cannot exist.
As yet I have no reason to believe that. Can you think of one?
As yet I have no reason to believe that. Can you think of one?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 01:20 PM)
As yet I have no reason to believe that. Can you think of one?
The fact that you exist is evidence any god that would tolerate a complete waste of space such yourself.
The fact that you exist is evidence any god that would tolerate a complete waste of space such yourself.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 12 2009, 06:43 PM)
He might as well be saying: "If the Easter Bunny exists, it is almost certainly a chicken, since it lays eggs."
There is certainly no reason to believe that, and quite a few reasons to disbelieve it. At this point notice that blatant dishonesty is more and more becoming a frequent way of attempting to "oppose" the things I point out.
There is certainly no reason to believe that, and quite a few reasons to disbelieve it. At this point notice that blatant dishonesty is more and more becoming a frequent way of attempting to "oppose" the things I point out.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 01:26 PM)
quite a few reasons to disbelieve it.
Name one that applies to the Easter Bunny but doesn't apply to god.
Name one that applies to the Easter Bunny but doesn't apply to god.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 12 2009, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
It's on my list for good reason.
Unless there is a god that is external from the universe, then there is no alternative.
If beings can learn to survive independant of any particular star or whatever then they are on their way to independance of the "universe". If you can take any steps towards understanding that much then please do and we can move on with the idea. But of course if not, it's over from the "start".
Unless there is a god that is external from the universe, then there is no alternative.
If beings can learn to survive independant of any particular star or whatever then they are on their way to independance of the "universe". If you can take any steps towards understanding that much then please do and we can move on with the idea. But of course if not, it's over from the "start".
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
Life originated from totally natural processes.
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.
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.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
And if your god is part of the same natural process, then by definition - it ain't god.
I have no reason to believe that.
I have no reason to believe that.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 01:34 PM)
I have no reason to believe that.
That's the definition of god. You seem to think it means "something really cool."
That's the definition of god. You seem to think it means "something really cool."
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 13 2009, 07:49 AM)
Why can't the Easter Bunny be an alien?
If one exists, I believe he would be neither native nor resident of Earth.
If one exists, I believe he would be neither native nor resident of Earth.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 13 2009, 05:29 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
QUOTE (flyingbutt+)
He might as well be saying: "If the Easter Bunny exists, it is almost certainly a chicken, since it lays eggs."
There is certainly no reason to believe that, and quite a few reasons to disbelieve it.
If the EB exists we can think of several things other than chickens that lay eggs, but if God exists we can't think of how he could possibly be anything other than an alien.
God could be imaginary, just like the easter bunny.
The point is that most theists don't care about the "what came first" question. They believe that god has always been, and always will be. You are trying to have faith in god while accepting that god cannot be eternal. This is like accepting that the Easter Bunny isn't magical, yet you are looking for a rabbit to call "Easter Bunny." You don't care which rabbit it is; you are just so determined to find the Easter Bunny that any rabbit will do. In all of this, you have not addressed why you think that the Easter Bunny (god) is necessary at all. Why is it even worth thinking about?
Name one that applies to the Easter Bunny but doesn't apply to god.
If the EB exists we can think of several things other than chickens that lay eggs, but if God exists we can't think of how he could possibly be anything other than an alien.
If the EB exists we can think of several things other than chickens that lay eggs, but if God exists we can't think of how he could possibly be anything other than an alien.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 01:53 PM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is certainly no reason to believe that, and quite a few reasons to disbelieve it. Name one that applies to the Easter Bunny but doesn't apply to god. |
If the EB exists we can think of several things other than chickens that lay eggs, but if God exists we can't think of how he could possibly be anything other than an alien.
God could be imaginary, just like the easter bunny.
The point is that most theists don't care about the "what came first" question. They believe that god has always been, and always will be. You are trying to have faith in god while accepting that god cannot be eternal. This is like accepting that the Easter Bunny isn't magical, yet you are looking for a rabbit to call "Easter Bunny." You don't care which rabbit it is; you are just so determined to find the Easter Bunny that any rabbit will do. In all of this, you have not addressed why you think that the Easter Bunny (god) is necessary at all. Why is it even worth thinking about?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 05:34 PM)
I have no reason to believe that.
The primary dictionary definition of god:
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
You lose.
The primary dictionary definition of god:
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
You lose.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 11:15 PM)
If one exists, I believe he would be neither native nor resident of Earth.
So no possibility is absurd to you.
So no possibility is absurd to you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 13 2009, 06:00 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If the EB exists we can think of several things other than chickens that lay eggs, but if God exists we can't think of how he could possibly be anything other than an alien.
God could be imaginary, just like the easter bunny.
It doesn't fit. I feel sure we've been through this before, but since you people are so slow that you're not in motion at all I guess it's not surprising that we have to keep going over it again and again. Let's see how it looks when we try your idea:
If God exists, God could be imaginary.
Still just as absurd as it was the first time one of you wanted to try it out. Maybe you can't see anything absurd, contradictory or ignorant about such an idea, but I see all of those things and nothing realistic about it at all.
It doesn't fit. I feel sure we've been through this before, but since you people are so slow that you're not in motion at all I guess it's not surprising that we have to keep going over it again and again. Let's see how it looks when we try your idea:
If God exists, God could be imaginary.
Still just as absurd as it was the first time one of you wanted to try it out. Maybe you can't see anything absurd, contradictory or ignorant about such an idea, but I see all of those things and nothing realistic about it at all.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
The point is that most theists don't care about the "what came first" question. They believe that god has always been, and always will be. You are trying to have faith in god while accepting that god cannot be eternal. This is like accepting that the Easter Bunny isn't magical, yet you are looking for a rabbit to call "Easter Bunny." You don't care which rabbit it is; you are just so determined to find the Easter Bunny that any rabbit will do. In all of this, you have not addressed why you think that the Easter Bunny (god) is necessary at all. Why is it even worth thinking about?
It's not necessary. It's worth thinking about for a number of reasons that you must be aware of by this time, but have chosen to deny something about them. Maybe you want to deny that they exist at all? Or that they do exist but you don't consider them important enough to think about realistically? This is really more of an area for you to answer for yourself. Since you obviously do think about the topic and spend time discussing it in this forum, why do you want to pretend you don't know why it's worth thinking about? Can you answer that much?
It's not necessary. It's worth thinking about for a number of reasons that you must be aware of by this time, but have chosen to deny something about them. Maybe you want to deny that they exist at all? Or that they do exist but you don't consider them important enough to think about realistically? This is really more of an area for you to answer for yourself. Since you obviously do think about the topic and spend time discussing it in this forum, why do you want to pretend you don't know why it's worth thinking about? Can you answer that much?
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 13 2009, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If one exists, I believe he would be neither native nor resident of Earth.
So no possibility is absurd to you.
Yes, some are. The "possibility" that he could be a native of Earth seems absurd to me now that you mention it, and so does the "possibility" that he could be a resident of Earth. I also consider the "possibility" that he could be omnipotent yet technologically inferior to be absurd possibly to the point of being some degree of mentally handicapped.
Yes, some are. The "possibility" that he could be a native of Earth seems absurd to me now that you mention it, and so does the "possibility" that he could be a resident of Earth. I also consider the "possibility" that he could be omnipotent yet technologically inferior to be absurd possibly to the point of being some degree of mentally handicapped.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 26 2009, 12:29 AM)
Yes, some are. The "possibility" that he could be a native of Earth seems absurd to me now that you mention it, and so does the "possibility" that he could be a resident of Earth. I also consider the "possibility" that he could be omnipotent yet technologically inferior to be absurd possibly to the point of being some degree of mentally handicapped.
There are other ideas which are absurd too. You seem unable to get beyond just that one idea that no one suggested.
There are other ideas which are absurd too. You seem unable to get beyond just that one idea that no one suggested.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 25 2009, 08:13 PM)
There are other ideas which are absurd too. You seem unable to get beyond just that one idea that no one suggested.
By mentioning goofities like Sky Daddy etc people are suggesting it's more likely that God would be a resident of Earth than live somewhere else, and by suggesting God would not be an alien they are saying it's most likely he would be native to Earth. I didn't create the situation, and can't change it either. Only the goofy ones who embrace such goofiness are able to clense themselves of it, IF even they/you can. Can you wash away your own goofity by acknowledging the fact that God would almost certainly not be native to a planet he created billions of years after he had come into existence, making him an ALIEN to this planet? Can you wash away your problem with God being "in the sky", and finally recognise how unlikely it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ?
By mentioning goofities like Sky Daddy etc people are suggesting it's more likely that God would be a resident of Earth than live somewhere else, and by suggesting God would not be an alien they are saying it's most likely he would be native to Earth. I didn't create the situation, and can't change it either. Only the goofy ones who embrace such goofiness are able to clense themselves of it, IF even they/you can. Can you wash away your own goofity by acknowledging the fact that God would almost certainly not be native to a planet he created billions of years after he had come into existence, making him an ALIEN to this planet? Can you wash away your problem with God being "in the sky", and finally recognise how unlikely
it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 13 2009, 08:07 PM)
The primary dictionary definition of god:
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
You lose.
How do you think that makes me lose anything? It certainly doesn't suggest that God must necessarily be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
You lose.
How do you think that makes me lose anything? It certainly doesn't suggest that God must necessarily be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 11:47 AM)
By mentioning goofities like Sky Daddy etc people are suggesting it's more likely that God would be a resident of Earth than live somewhere else, and by suggesting God would not be an alien they are saying it's most likely he would be native to Earth. I didn't create the situation, and can't change it either. Only the goofy ones who embrace such goofiness are able to clense themselves of it, IF even they/you can. Can you wash away your own goofity by acknowledging the fact that God would almost certainly not be native to a planet he created billions of years after he had come into existence, making him an ALIEN to this planet? Can you wash away your problem with God being "in the sky", and finally recognise how unlikely it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ?
stop trolling.
it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ? stop trolling.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 03:47 PM)
By mentioning goofities like Sky Daddy etc people are suggesting it's more likely that God would be a resident of Earth than live somewhere else,
NO they are suggesting that God is defined as an omnipotent being.
You are talking about space aliens as gods, but you are not talking about God.
NO they are suggesting that God is defined as an omnipotent being.
You are talking about space aliens as gods, but you are not talking about God.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 09:17 PM)
By mentioning goofities like Sky Daddy etc people are suggesting it's more likely that God would be a resident of Earth than live somewhere else, and by suggesting God would not be an alien they are saying it's most likely he would be native to Earth. I didn't create the situation, and can't change it either. Only the goofy ones who embrace such goofiness are able to clense themselves of it, IF even they/you can. Can you wash away your own goofity by acknowledging the fact that God would almost certainly not be native to a planet he created billions of years after he had come into existence, making him an ALIEN to this planet? Can you wash away your problem with God being "in the sky", and finally recognise how unlikely it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ?
Can you wash away your firm belief that the Easter Bunny could somehow be a technologically inferior native of this planet?
it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ? Can you wash away your firm belief that the Easter Bunny could somehow be a technologically inferior native of this planet?
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 27 2009, 11:19 PM)
Can you wash away your firm belief that the Easter Bunny could somehow be a technologically inferior native of this planet?
one for one,
two for all,
will you ever know it all?
and if I could add just three,
that, my friend is your -Misery-
one for one,
two for all,
will you ever know it all?
and if I could add just three,
that, my friend is your -Misery-
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 27 2009, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
By mentioning goofities like Sky Daddy etc people are suggesting it's more likely that God would be a resident of Earth than live somewhere else,
NO they are suggesting that God is defined as an omnipotent being.
Calling him a Sky Daddy in no way suggests he is sometimes defined as omnipotent.
Calling him a Sky Daddy in no way suggests he is sometimes defined as omnipotent.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You are talking about space aliens as gods, but you are not talking about God.
I disbelieve that if God exists he is native to Earth.
I disbelieve that if God exists he is native to Earth.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 27 2009, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Can you wash away your problem with God being "in the sky", and finally recognise how unlikely it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ?
it really is that he would reside on Earth? Can you wash away your firm belief that he could somehow be both omnipotent and technologically inferior to humans ?Can you wash away your firm belief that the Easter Bunny could somehow be a technologically inferior native of this planet?
If the EB does exist he is probably technologically advanced beyond what humans are even aware of, though you might refer to it as "magic". However, I disbelieve that the EB exists and have strong faith that such a being does not exist on this planet.
If the EB does exist he is probably technologically advanced beyond what humans are even aware of, though you might refer to it as "magic". However, I disbelieve that the EB exists and have strong faith that such a being does not exist on this planet.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 28 2009, 11:35 PM)
If the EB does exist he is probably technologically advanced beyond what humans are even aware of, though you might refer to it as "magic". However, I disbelieve that the EB exists and have strong faith that such a being does not exist on this planet.
What is the exact reason you have strong faith that EB does not exist, but are weak agnostic about God?
What is the exact reason you have strong faith that EB does not exist, but are weak agnostic about God?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 28 2009, 05:57 PM)
NO they are suggesting that God is defined as an omnipotent being.[/QUOTE]
Calling him a Sky Daddy in no way suggests he is sometimes defined as omnipotent.
Calling him a Sky Daddy in no way suggests he is sometimes defined as omnipotent.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You are talking about space aliens as gods, but you are not talking about God.
I disbelieve that if God exists he is native to Earth.
To the people calling him Sky Daddy it does because they understand the everyone but you talks about an omnipotent being.
People who consider God to be omnipotent consider you an Atheist no matter how much don't want to admit it.
I disbelieve that if God exists he is native to Earth.
To the people calling him Sky Daddy it does because they understand the everyone but you talks about an omnipotent being.
People who consider God to be omnipotent consider you an Atheist no matter how much don't want to admit it.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 28 2009, 11:22 PM)
What is the exact reason you have strong faith that EB does not exist,
There are several and I won't go into all of them but here are some:
1. I know that people lie about it.
2. Since I've had some experience with rabbits I know a rabbit could not do that, and doubt very seriously that any of them would even if they could.
3. I know the evidence that there is such a being is false and deliberately placed by humans with the deliberate intention of creating a false impression in ignorant trusting children.
Then how do you explain all these chocolate eggs I got last Easter?
They were delicious and I am sure I saw a bunny hopping around here.
There are several and I won't go into all of them but here are some:
1. I know that people lie about it.
2. Since I've had some experience with rabbits I know a rabbit could not do that, and doubt very seriously that any of them would even if they could.
3. I know the evidence that there is such a being is false and deliberately placed by humans with the deliberate intention of creating a false impression in ignorant trusting children.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
but are weak agnostic about God?
The reasons are in some ways similar:
1. I feel certain some people lie about religious beliefs but believe that others are honest about them.
2. Considering the things humans have become able to do in a relatively short period of time, the amount of time that has passed in comparison, and the fact that there are billions of other star systems I consider it more likely than not that gods exist in the universe.
3. No one knows whether the evidence of God's existence came about just by chance or was deliberately provided by God.
The reasons are in some ways similar:
1. I feel certain some people lie about religious beliefs but believe that others are honest about them.
2. Considering the things humans have become able to do in a relatively short period of time, the amount of time that has passed in comparison, and the fact that there are billions of other star systems I consider it more likely than not that gods exist in the universe.
3. No one knows whether the evidence of God's existence came about just by chance or was deliberately provided by God.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 28 2009, 11:42 PM)
People who consider God to be omnipotent consider you an Atheist no matter how much don't want to admit it.
People who feel that omnipotence is an impossible concept don't always think very much of the opinion of others who think it is possible.
People who feel that omnipotence is an impossible concept don't always think very much of the opinion of others who think it is possible.
QUOTE
f the EB does exist he is probably technologically advanced beyond what humans are even aware of, though you might refer to it as "magic". However, I disbelieve that the EB exists and have strong faith that such a being does not exist on this planet.
Then how do you explain all these chocolate eggs I got last Easter?
They were delicious and I am sure I saw a bunny hopping around here.
Dude. That wasn't the Easter Bunny, it was the Chupacabra de Nacho on an off day...
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 29 2009, 06:55 PM)
2. Since I've had some experience with rabbits I know a rabbit could not do that, and doubt very seriously that any of them would even if they could.
We all know that rabbits do not lay eggs. Therefore, using your logic, the Easter Bunny must really be a Platypus. After all, that's a mammal that lays eggs.
So - logically - we should be discussing the Easter Platypus, which brings us eggs for the celebration of the day that the space alien's descendant rose from the dead.
It's all coming together...
We all know that rabbits do not lay eggs. Therefore, using your logic, the Easter Bunny must really be a Platypus. After all, that's a mammal that lays eggs.
So - logically - we should be discussing the Easter Platypus, which brings us eggs for the celebration of the day that the space alien's descendant rose from the dead.
It's all coming together...
QUOTE (nopEda+)
1. I feel certain some people lie about religious beliefs but believe that others are honest about them.
Many people honestly believe in a ridiculous things. Examples:
*9-11 was caused by the US government
*Apollo moon landings were filmed by Nasa in a studio
Many people honestly believe in a ridiculous things. Examples:
*9-11 was caused by the US government
*Apollo moon landings were filmed by Nasa in a studio
QUOTE (nopEda+)
2. Considering the things humans have become able to do in a relatively short period of time, the amount of time that has passed in comparison, and the fact that there are billions of other star systems I consider it more likely than not that gods exist in the universe.
..only if you start calling technologically advanced Aliens as God.
While you are at it, why not start calling technologically advanced Aliens as Easter Bunny...or Santa Claus...or Loch ness Monster...or Chupacabra.
..only if you start calling technologically advanced Aliens as God.
While you are at it, why not start calling technologically advanced Aliens as Easter Bunny...or Santa Claus...or Loch ness Monster...or Chupacabra.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
3. No one knows whether the evidence of God's existence came about just by chance or was deliberately provided by God.
What evidence?
What evidence?
I believe for the "truly saved" salvation is eternal.
i believe scripture is very clear that while one can't "lose" their salvation, they can certainly forfeit it. Take note.
i believe scripture is very clear that while one can't "lose" their salvation, they can certainly forfeit it. Take note.
QUOTE (Frothy+Oct 31 2009, 06:01 AM)
I believe for the "truly saved" salvation is eternal.
i believe scripture is very clear that while one can't "lose" their salvation, they can certainly forfeit it. Take note.
I believe you are a religious nutjob who can't form a coherent message to post in this topic, so you resort to meaningless and off-topic proselytizing to cover your lack of mental capacity. Take note.
i believe scripture is very clear that while one can't "lose" their salvation, they can certainly forfeit it. Take note.
I believe you are a religious nutjob who can't form a coherent message to post in this topic, so you resort to meaningless and off-topic proselytizing to cover your lack of mental capacity. Take note.
QUOTE (Frothy+Oct 31 2009, 11:01 AM)
I believe for the "truly saved" salvation is eternal.
i believe scripture is very clear that while one can't "lose" their salvation, they can certainly forfeit it. Take note.
But it doesn't matter how "clear" it is if it's not accurate.
Have you established the accuracy of the Bible and if so, how?
And why has no one else managed to do so.
(no circular logic please.)
i believe scripture is very clear that while one can't "lose" their salvation, they can certainly forfeit it. Take note.
But it doesn't matter how "clear" it is if it's not accurate.
Have you established the accuracy of the Bible and if so, how?
And why has no one else managed to do so.
(no circular logic please.)
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 31 2009, 04:35 PM)
But it doesn't matter how "clear" it is if it's not accurate.
Have you established the accuracy of the Bible and if so, how?
And why has no one else managed to do so.
(no circular logic please.)
Time - How did it come about? I'm going to start another post.
Have you established the accuracy of the Bible and if so, how?
And why has no one else managed to do so.
(no circular logic please.)
Time - How did it come about? I'm going to start another post.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 31 2009, 04:59 PM)
Time - How did it come about?
Humans invented the idea in order to keep track of when events take place and at what rate things happen. Time as a force or whatever does not exist...it's nothing but a concept that humans invented for our own convenience.
Humans invented the idea in order to keep track of when events take place and at what rate things happen. Time as a force or whatever does not exist...it's nothing but a concept that humans invented for our own convenience.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 29 2009, 09:29 PM)
We all know that rabbits do not lay eggs. Therefore, using your logic, the Easter Bunny must really be a Platypus. After all, that's a mammal that lays eggs.
So - logically - we should be discussing the Easter Platypus, which brings us eggs for the celebration of the day that the space alien's descendant rose from the dead.
So - logically - we should be discussing the Easter Platypus, which brings us eggs for the celebration of the day that the space alien's descendant rose from the dead.