There is a God (Believe it)

[tomcalab]

Do laws exist? I've not seen some laws, but I've experienced the effects of their existence.

Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of a law, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of the law?

Answer.....Law enforcement.



Does God exist? I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).

Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of God, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of God?

Answer....My conscience.


Can God be physically detected or measured?

Are there "things" on this earth that you can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or measure with current scientific instruments?

If you said "no", then good luck trying to prove it.

If you said "yes", then good luck trying to prove it.

That still doesn't mean they don't exist.


Still, why would someone choose to believe in something for which there is no physical measurement? Why would someone believe in the existence of something simply because of what appears to be superstitious writings of people who lived thousands of years ago and has been used to influence more wars, death, and hatred than any other influence in the course of recorded history? Why?

Brainwashing?

Forced submission?

Lack of intelligence?

Mental illness?

Mindless tradition?

Is this really what we think of those who believe in God? And, how do we plan to solve these problems? By mandatory education(brainwashing), punishment(forced submission), drugs to treat the mentally challenged or mentally ill, or by isolationism (mindless tradition)?


or is it Human nature?

If it is human nature to believe in God then will we eventually evolve, or become victims of natural selection?

In a million years or so will we humans evolve into a superior creature that has no genetic tendency to believe in God.

Until then, God exists in the minds of billions of people

[Ian David]

1. Mel Gibson is alive, but Steve Irwin is dead. Therefore, there is no god.

I'll change my mind if Mel Gibson is killed by a stingray at The Holocaust Museum.

If that happens, I'll spin the wheel and pick a faith at random.

Hopefully, it'll be Wicka. Those guys seem to get laid a lot.

[arcane1]

3. LMAO

:evilgrin:

conscience, or imagination?

[tomcalab]

5. Definitions

conscience 
–noun 1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscience&r=5


imagination
–noun 1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imagination

[arcane1]

7. I guess that answers my question

imagination it is! :silly:

[tomcalab]

16. Are you saying that...

The fact that I have a conscience is my imagination?

Or do you believe that my sense of right or wrong is delusional?

or...what?

[arcane1]

19. not quite:

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of God?

Answer....My imagination.

[tomcalab]

21. I respectfully disagree

Thank you for your input.

[arcane1]

22. no problemo, I respectfully disagree too

aside from that, it's all good :)

[greyl]

2. If God was removed from the world, how would the world be different?

I don't mean ideas or concepts about God, I mean God itself.

[Ian David]

6. We'd have to find new, more rational reasons to kill one another

Killing someone over religion makes as much sense as punching someone during a debate about whether Kirk was a better captain than Picard.

[arcane1]

8. that's not quite true:

the Kirk vs Picard debate at least has episodes that can be watched for evidence :)

[Ian David]

10. You're one of those damn Picardian Kirk-killers, aren't you?

Picard killed Kirk in The Strand.

Kirk died for our sins!

Damn Kirk-killers!

[salvorhardin]

13. Besides

Saying that Picard was the better Captain is just wrong. How can anyone be so misguided? ;-)

[Vidar]

151. Belief is a choice. So is non-belief

[tomcalab]

160. Yes!

I could not agree more. Thank you for chiming in.

[catbert836]

196. Like hell it is.

I could try really hard to believe in your god, but I would know that I'd just be deluding myself. Your god doesn't make any sense to me. How could I choose to believe in such a creature?

[tomcalab]

198. Can You Help?

I'm having a problem understanding how the universe can be infinite. Can you help?

[Random_Australian]

224. I CAN!

May not even be infinite, and needs no God to be infinite is the short answer.

Catbert said that he has found no evidence of God, right?

And thus could not believe, right?

...

How is it that the universe could only be infinite if there were a God?

Do you have any evidence for whether or not there is a God?

[tomcalab]

238. Yes or No

As far as I know...

Scientists have not found any evidence of God.

Scientists do not understand the universe and its entirity.

The only evidence that I have that there is a God is still being highly debated, but there is evidence. Some physical, and some not physical.

Can you agree with this statement?

"The existence of God is not necessary to explain the universe as we know it. This does not mean that God does not exist, it only means that scientists have yet to verify it".

Yes or No?

[Random_Australian]

280. What is this?

"some not physical."

If you mean mental with physical manifestation, then yeah evidence of that nature exists.

If you mean something that cannot be measured, then no evidence of that nature exists.

"but there is evidence"

I should not think you have evidence, but that just stems from my understanding of 'infinite' - I've always had a talent for understanding infinite things in places of them.

We'll see! The future seems bright - but that might be a mushroom cloud.

"The existence of God is not necessary to explain the universe as we know it. This does not mean that God does not exist"

is the bit I agree with. The other bit is superflous, but picks out scientists as special people again.

[tomcalab]

286. Evidence

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

I'd like to share just a couple of mine....

------------------------------------------

"If you mean something that cannot be measured, then no evidence of that nature exists."

Response: Data suggesting, or claiming that a god exists, ie. cultures, recorded accountings.


Also, there are types of evidence other than physical evidence. In Law there is Anecdotal, Testimonial, Statistical, and Analogical Evidence.

------------------------------------------------

""but there is evidence"

I should not think you have evidence, but that just stems from my understanding of 'infinite' - I've always had a talent for understanding infinite things in places of them.

Response: I appreciate your understanding of how infinite limits are important. In mathematics there is infinity because we can always add to the number we are imagining, but does that mean that the value we have just created in our mind, or on paper actually exists.And we know that the square root of -1 is, by definition, an "imaginary number".

So, imagining things is nothing new to scientists. especially scientists who make great discoveries.

Consider this:

What is the highest number? My answer: Infinity + 1.

Then why not.....

What is the highest form of life in an infinite universe? My answer: Man + 1

--------------------------------------

Thanks again and...............good day.

[Random_Australian]

304. dot dot dot ...

"Response: Data suggesting, or claiming that a god exists, ie. cultures, recorded accountings. "

Since when does it suggest that God exists? ... actually I have a quick experiment if you don't mind:

Example anecdote: (Yes, this is very different from the evidence to which you referred. This is intentional. And don't think I did not quote somebody for the vision bit)

"I smacked my head just above the jaw. I then saw a great tunnel open up before me and heard many voices! It was a vision of the afterlife where a swarm of souls go to meet the Lord!"

Would you just tell me the information you get out of that short anecdote?

(Some details were changed so as not to cast aspersions on people's real-world experiences)

"In mathematics there is infinity because we can always add to the number we are imagining, but does that mean that the value we have just created in our mind, or on paper actually exists."

I see one flaw - since when did any of the other values 'actually' exist?

"And we know that the square root of -1 is, by definition, an "imaginary number"."

Same name, but not necessarily the same meaning.

"What is the highest number? My answer: Infinity + 1.

Then why not....."

My goodness gracious, which form of infinity are you using? Mathematically, infinity plus one is infinity, and conceptually it is less. (Because it is now a defined, set amount which a normal infinity will simply expand beyond)

"What is the highest form of life in an infinite universe? My answer: Man + 1"

Highest form of life? And how do you propose one form of life is 'higher' than any other?

Please, post an example of some property that makes one life-form 'higher' than another.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

305. The fact that you choose not to is a choice.

Different things make sense to different people. Is that so hard to accept?

[beam me up scottie]

324. No, it's NOT a choice. Non-belief in imaginary beings is not a choice.

You're begging the question.

I can't choose to believe in leprechauns just because you claim that they exist.

Why is that so hard to accept?

[Random_Australian]

329. Ooooh, it is for me!

That's pretty rare, that is. :)

But then, the last person to accuse me of having a normal mind was a singing potato :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

259. Wrong. Your deity is as credible as any other figment of mans' imagination

I can no more choose to believe in imaginary gods than I can choose to believe in leprechauns and pixies.

Of course, some people can believe everything they're told but I like to believe they're in the minority.

[Zhade]

321. Completely false.

I am unable to force myself to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

That's not choice; that's biology.

[tomcalab]

23. No Creator...No World

Theoretically, without God there would be no world.

Was there some other angle you were looking for?

[salvorhardin]

26. Why

Why does there need to be a creator for their to be a world? Why can't it just be?

[tomcalab]

27. You're Rght!

Yes, there could very well be a world without a creator. Some beleive that we are the result of organized chaos over zillions of years, and have evolved from apes.

I agree that some people look and act like they evolved from apes, but the complexity of the universe that supports the earth, and the lack of evidence of life other than on earth lends itself to logically reason that life requires the exact conditions found here on earth.


Intellegent design seems much more logical than organized chaos.

And then there is that question about who or what created what the universe is made of.

If you saw a building, wouldn't you know there was an architect and builder?

[Random_Australian]

28. My computer wiped my reply.

And to add insult to injury, it wiped the post where I said it wiped my reply.

[salvorhardin]

30. The FSM was angry at your weak reply

If you possessed the will power your reply would have posted properly. Your punishment is an evening at The Olive Garden eating bad Italian food. :evilgrin:

[Random_Australian]

34. Ha! We don't even HAVE 'Olive Garden' here.

But seriously, my post was so good I was so excited to be posting it, and then I get this stupid message "connection reset by peer" and it wiped it. :(

Don't worry, in a number of hours when the internet is working proper, then I will post again!

:)

P.S. In order to post this I copied and pasted it (1) times.

[Zebedeo]

42. ROTFLMAO

"connection reset by peer"

Man, I always get idiotic, useless error messages from my computer, but that one is a classic.

When I get "a fatal exception has occurred," I always think I am going to be given a heart attack or stroke.

[Random_Australian]

44. And the classic line

"Hey, who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?"

In other words, got to go but I will be back tonight!

[tomcalab]

39. No evidence

I don't see any evidence of your post on this thread....

I would like to hear from you.

[Random_Australian]

40. Soon! Tonight (it is about midday here) I'll be back!

No worries. :)

And yes, "wiped my post" means that when I clicked "post" it went "Error: connection reset by peer" and wiped my post. (I am going through a proxy you see)

[CrispyQ]

47. lol - now you want evidence!

Couldn't resist. ;)

[tomcalab]

56. lol - Darn I was hoping you had some !

Couldn't resist

[salvorhardin]

29. A couple of problems

I agree that some people look and act like they evolved from apes

I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that phrase smacks of bigotry. First, and foremost, it implies that some people are less evolved than others, that some people are inherently better than others because of their genetic heritage. That is just so wrong on so many levels. It also absolves those who behave in an amoral fashion of responsibility for their behavior by presupposing their behavior is in some way animalistic. Furthermore, it assumes that humans are in some way better than apes. While I would say we have a greater ethical obligation to humans (and many would argue against that), one of the things that science has taught us in recent decades is that the even insects and microbial life are as important to sustaining the earth's ecosystem as are humans. We're all on this pale blue dot together and whether we live or die as a species depends largely on how we treat our neighbors.

but the complexity of the universe that supports the earth, and the lack of evidence of life other than on earth lends itself to logically reason that life requires the exact conditions found here on earth.

I just find that to be an incredibly arrogant position. The earth is no more or less favored in the cosmos than any other planet. As near as we can tell, the laws of physics rule equally in all parts of the universe and to suppose that just because we haven't found life elsewhere is somehow indicative of no life existing anywhere other than on earth is a rather shortsighted and, again, anthropocentric view of our place in the universe.

Intellegent design seems much more logical than organized chaos.

I have semantic issues with the term 'organized chaos' but I'll let that slide because I think I know what you mean. But as to intellegent <sic> design seeming to be more logical than your organized chaos, well I suppose if you haven't spent much time with biology, mathematics or computer science then I can see how you might think that is so. In fact I used to think that way myself until I was exposed to John Conway's game of Life sometime in the early 1980s.
http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

That fact of the matter is that random happenstance easily gives rise to the kinds of complexity evidenced by living organisms. And lest you think that is nothing but a silly mathematical game, I need only point you to the ease with which carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen "play" with each other and the myriads of complex compounds they form with no other impetus than heat and proximity. Sure, you can say there's a creator behind it all, but, again, why? Once one looks at it from that perspective the supernatural creator becomes superfluous.

And then there is that question about who or what created what the universe is made of.

If you saw a building, wouldn't you know there was an architect and builder?

I'll cede the first question to you, but really that doesn't interest me very much. For the most part I think the answer is unknowable. Actually, I'd prefer to say that it is a nonsensical question to begin with. But if that is the extent of your god, which is very much in keeping with the deistic tradition of quite a few (not all) of the founders of this country followed, then I'd say our disagreement is a mere philosophical one and nothing more.

As for your second question, that is also nonsensical in context. I assume that there was an architect and builder(s) when I see a building because I know buildings are human constructions. Nobody has witnessed a building suddenly springing into existence (despite the distortions of quantum mechanics that many paranormalists purport), and unless we are so fundamentally wrong about almost all of modern physics no one ever will. Buildings only arise at the whim of humans and after a laborious process. The universe in which we find ourself has no need to justify itself to us, and, once again, there is no need to suppose a creator behind it all.

[tomcalab]

36. Very Well Said

Thank you for your response. I understand and appreciate your viewpoint. I hope others will take the time to read it.

[CrispyQ]

46. ...

"...and the lack of evidence of life other than on earth lends itself to logically reason that life requires the exact conditions found here on earth."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let's see, the Milky Way is roughly 100,000 light years across & ours is just one of billions of galaxies in our universe & you claim there is lack of evidence of life other than here on earth. I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type.

I won't even touch the old watch & watch maker argument. We both know where that goes. ;)

[tomcalab]

53. Green Cheese

And is the moon is made of cheese? Where is the evidence...otherwise all you have is faith in probability.

God gives Faith, hope, and love.

[cyborg_jim]

87. No, Zeus does not.

Do you know nothing of Zeus? He is not the god of faith, hope or love.

[tomcalab]

144. Off Topic

Sorry I've got a ton of responses to address. But no...I do not know much of pagan gods.

[cyborg_jim]

173. You should

They are real after all. Well as real as your god is anyway.

[tomcalab]

180. Then Start a Thread

I am open to a discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Then answer this question using logic: who created the creator?

Intelligent design is creationism with a fake diploma.

Claiming ID is based on logic is like claiming *'s foreign and domestic policies are based on compassion.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

112. The creator's parents, dummy!

[tomcalab]

147. Oh Yeah..I forgot... God Parents - lol

It's not nice to call people dummys. They got this whole ape thing they got hanging over them.

[beam me up scottie]

260. "Ape thing" ? Do you mean evolution, Dr. Hovind?

It's funny, the only time I hear evolution described that way is when the fundies at work try to convince me Noah really did have a boat that held two of every living creature on it.

Those poor deluded fools even think he had dinosaurs on board.

And you'll find T.Grannie tends to side with the evolutionists, dear, when she called me a "dummy" she was being silly, not mean.

You see, she is as fond of most DU atheists as we are of her.

Maybe when you grow up you'll be more like T.Grannie and understand that science doesn't need to be a threat to faith.

[tomcalab]

288. Here's What I Think

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, I really appreciate your input.

I've pasted your response below, and have inserted my "Response:"

-------------------------------------------

It's funny, the only time I hear evolution described that way is when the fundies at work try to convince me Noah really did have a boat that held two of every living creature on it.


Response: I have not put much thought into the story of Noah, so I am not close-minded. But can I imagine a way for the story of Noah to not be incomprehensible? Yes. Noah collect two animals of each classification of species. If this were true, then Darwin would have noticed the similarities between them.

Just an educated guess, that's all.
-------------------------------------


when she called me a "dummy" she was being silly, not mean.

You see, she is as fond of most DU atheists as we are of her.

Maybe when you grow up you'll be more like T.Grannie and understand that science doesn't need to be a threat to faith

Response: I am sorry if I offended you in any way. My faith does not promote insults, and I am always wanting to do the best I can.

--------------------------------------------

Maybe when you grow up you'll be more like T.Grannie and understand that science doesn't need to be a threat to faith

Response: I have never said that science is a threat to my faith, nor do I think it. I do not know why you think, I think it is.

I think that: Science without Religion is crippled, and Religion without Science is blind.

[SPKrazy]

244. Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed

therefore there is no creator

time doesn't exist outside of our dimension

we all just are

and so is God (my view) just is, and is in, everything

[beam me up scottie]

268. How does that answer my question?

The op claims to have the market cornered on logic, let him explain to this stupid heathen (using logic, of course) just where his "creator" came from.

[Zhade]

52. "Some beleive...that we have evolved from apes" - and they are idiots.

Because if you knew anything about evolutionary fact, you'd know that evolutionary scientists DO NOT hypothesize that we evolved from apes, but that we share a common ancestor.

I.D. = Infinite Dumbassery, as in "too stupid to be mocked". Here's an easy demolition of THAT laughable house of cards: who designed the designer?

I.D. needs weak minds to feed its lies. Please don't be one of those fools.

[tomcalab]

54. And I've got a bridge for sale.

Science is man's way of explaining God's creation. And he's a whole lot smarter than we are.

Organized chaos literally makes sense out of nonsense. No thanks...I understand a thing or two about probability and ID is much more logical.

[Zhade]

57. Hey, we can agree to disagree.

My side has all the evidence, yours none, but we can still work together on the things we DO agree on.

So, how about some universal health care, or getting these criminals in the b*s* administration tossed into prison - how do we accomplish these things, do you think?

[tomcalab]

64. I couldn't resist - lol

Pray

[beam me up scottie]

58. If ID is "much more logical", why haven't you answered my question?

Who created the creator?

[tomcalab]

65. Logical Response

The painting is painted by the painter.

Who painted the painter?

[Random_Australian]

70. Logical response:

Painting is created by the painter.

Who created the painter?



In other words, painter put together chemicals.

Painting is made of chemicals.

[tomcalab]

73. Yes

But the painter is not made of the same chemicals.

My understanding is that God put together the atoms and made the universe but God is not made of those same atoms.

When it comes to God himself...he is descibed as a spirit, and he is eternal.

I know.... who made the spirit?

We can discuss that when it's revealed to us, but for now I believe the debate is confined by atheists to that which can only be measured in the physical world.

See ya in life hereafter?..Cheers

[Random_Australian]

74. I forgot my reply was wiped... whoops!

Anyway, I basically showed that the universe (while it could certainly use one) does not *need* a creator.

(Premise: All things need a creator.

Therefore the universe must have been created.

Who created God? (God was not created)

Therefore some things exist which don't have to be created.

Therefore initial premise false.

Therefore the universe does not *need* a creator.)

Basically, the Creator, if there is one, was never going to make it easy.

More when I have the time, I got to get to class!)

[beam me up scottie]

99. Answer my question, please.

You claim ID is more logical than science, now back it up.

Using logic, who created the creator?

[tomcalab]

102. Who made God?

Who made something that is eternal? That's like asking what are the limits of infinity?

Look....

My understanding is that God put together the atoms and made the universe, but God is not made of those same atoms.

When it comes to God himself...he is described as a spirit, and he is eternal.

I know.... who makes spirits?

Well, the first step in answering this is to detect and measure spirits so we can create a hypothesis on their fundamental makeup. I don't believe there has been much funding for this. Nor do I know if it is possible, but we do have eye-witness accounts of their existence.

We can discuss the nature of spirits when it's revealed to us, but for now I believe the debate is confined by atheists to that which can only be measured in the physical world. They seem to want physical proof.

Either way......logic would have it that something is not made from nothing, so the fact that we exist proves that there was a creator. A painting proves there was a painter. A building proves that there was a builder. Buildings did not evolve from lumber, and lumber does not evolve from trees.

Pretty simple, once you open your mind to the idea of spirits.

Yet somehow I am asked to believe that this beautifully orchestrated array of atoms which create our world, has no intelligent design what so ever. When one studies science, one reveals the genius of God's creation, not the happenstance of organized chaos.

In the beginning, God said "Bang".

Atheists can not explain where the atom came from, so why do they ask who created the creator? Something created the atom, or are we all simply imagining all this?

I am that I am, and that is exactly how God describes himself in the Bible some 3000 years ago. Who are we, his creation, to question his work? Enjoy life, and thank the creator for this beautiful creation.

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

Pretty clear to me, and written over 3000 years ago. We do not have the hands to make atoms out of a vacume.

[cyborg_jim]

104. Let's assume there's a creator

We can discuss the nature of spirits when it's revealed
to us, but for now I believe the debate is confined by atheists to that which can only be measured in the physical world. They seem to want physical proof.

That's because physical proof WORKS. You show me another system of investigation that has produced anything like the great advances in human civilization that appealing to the universe for answers about the universe has achieved.

Yes dammnit I want proof. You'd demand the same of a theist who doesn't worship your god.

Why does the creator have to be YOUR god? Why does it even have to be sentient?

A painting proves there was a painter. A building proves that there was a builder. Buildings did not evolve from lumber, and lumber does not evolve from trees.

And induction is not a foolproof reasoning method. But you're the logic whizz right? Why don't you tell us why?

Pretty simple, once you open your mind to the idea of spirits.

Are you open to the idea of karma, or chakras, mystical energies? I bet not. I bet you'd demand a mystic proved himself.

Who are we, his creation, to question his work?

I am me and I question your god's supposed work.

[tomcalab]

111. Calm Down Please

I usually don't cut and paste people's responses and place my answers in between, but I have done so here.

1) Yes dammnit I want proof. You'd demand the same of a theist who doesn't worship your god.

I really don't care if anyone chooses to be an Atheist, Muslim, Christian, or etc...


2) Why does the creator have to be YOUR god? Why does it even have to be sentient?

He doesn't. He can do whatever he wants, I'm not responsible for how he acts.


3) A painting proves there was a painter. A building proves that there was a builder. Buildings did not evolve from lumber, and lumber does not evolve from trees.
And induction is not a foolproof reasoning method. But you're the logic whizz right? Why don't you tell us why?

I am doing the best I can in an honest and sincere way. I appologize if I've done something wrong.

4) Pretty simple, once you open your mind to the idea of spirits.
Are you open to the idea of karma, or chakras, mystical energies? I bet not. I bet you'd demand a mystic proved himself.

I do believe that Karma can run over dogma. Does that help? I wouldn't go to Vegas if I were you!


5) Who are we, his creation, to question his work?
I am me and I question your god's supposed work.

God wants you to love him and appreciate his blessings. Forced love and gratitude means nothing to him, thats why he designed us with the ability to reason.

Thank you for your response, and I hope you can respect my answers.

Good day.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

113. Run! Hide! It's not too late!

Up here on the porch! Want some cookies?

[cyborg_jim]

118. Don't confuse passion for anger

Sorry if it sounds bleh but you are running through the standard motions of believer arguements.

I really don't care if anyone chooses to be an Atheist, Muslim, Christian, or etc...

Surely your beliefs require adherance? Are you saying you don't care about souls?

He doesn't. He can do whatever he wants, I'm not responsible for how he acts.

Then you would be happy with god being a non-sentient function of reality? I.e. you could equivocate god to nature.

I am doing the best I can in an honest and sincere way. I appologize if I've done something wrong.

Well it's quite simple reason - you use examples of things that require human intervention for their organisation whilst failing to recognise that biology is an entirely different beast - that is to say your 'creation requires creator' inductive argument is fallicious.

I do believe that Karma can run over dogma. Does that help? I wouldn't go to Vegas if I were you!

Not enitrely sure what you mean.

God wants you to love him and appreciate his blessings.

Why? What purpose does it fulfill? Why am I to believe a bunch of apes who think too much of themsevles have any care from the creator of existence?

Forced love and gratitude means nothing to him, thats why he designed us with the ability to reason.

According to your theology using my ability to reason your god out of existence will lead to punishment. Your god gives a 'gift' that is not to be used. Whatever. He sounds as real to me as Zeus.

[tomcalab]

141. Then don't use curse words with me

When people use curse words, I like to calm things down.

Below, I have inserted my responses into your last response.



Sorry if it sounds bleh but you are running through the standard motions of believer arguments.

Response: I'm not aware of that. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this. Should I not express my opinion?


Surely your beliefs require adherance? Are you saying you don't care about souls?

Response: I'd like to stay on course with the topic. Adherence to some belief system and caring about souls should be separate threads. But to answer you question, I try to do what is best in every situation regardless of whether or not I believe in God. If I do that, then I figure I'm doing okay.



Then you would be happy with god being a non-sentient function of reality? I.e. you could equivocate god to nature.

Response: I'm happy with God anyway he presents himself to me.



Well it's quite simple reason - you use examples of things that require human intervention for their organisation whilst failing to recognise that biology is an entirely different beast - that is to say your 'creation requires creator' inductive argument is fallicious.

Response:I found this article on inductive argument. If you want to, please explain your issue using terms defined in the article and statements I have made. I look forward to reading your argument.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Inductive argument can be defined as a statement to gain adherence which moves from specific instances to a general conclusion.



Here is an example: "I owned a Volkswagen Bug and it was a lousy car so I conclude that all Volkswagen Bugs are lousy cars."

Hopefully you can identify that this argument begins with a specific instance and ends or concludes with a broad conclusion. You may not agree with the above conclusion but that does not deny that this argument is inductive.

There are four types of inductive argument that I will discuss: cause-effect, generalization, sign, and analogy.

CAUSE EFFECT

"One condition or event contributes to or brings about another conditions or event" (Warnick, 107).

Did eating the raw fish make you feel sick? If so, then the raw fish is the cause and the sickness is the effect. Rather than examining a list of possible flaws or fallacies, Warnick provides a series of "tests" which can be applied to each type of argument. These tests are guidelines by which to build you argument. You, as the speaker, need to keep in mind your audience and which types of arguments will most and least likely persuade them .

TESTS for C/E

1. Is the cause necessary and sufficient?

A. Necessary means the cause must be present. In order to have fire there must be oxygen, a source of fuel, and a source of ignition. All three of these must be present in order to have a fire.

B. Sufficient cause means the cause guarantees the effect will occur. If you could eat raw fish one day and not get sick then eating raw fish is not a sufficient cause of your becoming sick.

2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Ask questions. Is there something wrong with the fish? Did anybody else get sick form eating the fish? Do you have some type of allergic reaction to fish that would allow only you to get sick?

3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

If the effect is becoming ill and you took a pill to prevent becoming ill then the pill is the offsetting cause and now the fish is no longer capable of producing the effect of sickness. OR you may have been coming down with the flu in which case it was the flu NOT the fish which caused you to be sick.



I do believe that Karma can run over dogma. Does that help? I wouldn't go to Vegas if I were you!
Not enitrely sure what you mean.

Response: Karma is the same as you reap what you sow. The "Vegas" comment was in response to your "bet". I was saying you were wrong about me.


God wants you to love him and appreciate his blessings.

Why? What purpose does it fulfill? Why am I to believe a bunch of apes who think too much of themsevles have any care from the creator of existence?

Response: Simply put, it's the same as how a father cares for his children. I am a father of three boys,so I know what it feels like to love something you have brought into this world. It's that simple with God the creator.


Forced love and gratitude means nothing to him, thats why he designed us with the ability to reason.

According to your theology using my ability to reason your god out of existence will lead to punishment. Your god gives a 'gift' that is not to be used. Whatever. He sounds as real to me as Zeus.

Response:I have no idea how God works out any kind of penalty. I think that people who do not follow God's rule suffer consequences that can be avoided and that they can also adversely affect others around them. You know...the ol Ten Commandment stuff. Pretty simple rules to understand actually and very, very logical.

[cyborg_jim]

175. I'll use any damn words I like

I'm not aware of that. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this. Should I not express my opinion?

Well my point is that it's not really your opinion. Whether or not you're aware of it you've almost certainly picked up all these standard points from the usual sources.

I'm happy with God anyway he presents himself to me.

So you're basically saying you'd be happy to call completely natural, non-intelligent reason for creation 'God' despite it fulfilling none of the standard anthropomorphic qualities believers tend to require from it?

Simply put, it's the same as how a father cares for his children. I am a father of three boys,so I know what it feels like to love something you have brought into this world. It's that simple with God the creator.

And you're assuming your god is like you why? Sheer human arrogance? Does the queen ant 'care' for her children or is it merely a function of her design of which there is no here or there over whether she cares for them (whatever that might mean for an ant)?

Maybe the actual god of creation prefers dolphins and couldn't give a fig about you or I - how the hell do you really know?

Forced love and gratitude means nothing to him, thats why he designed us with the ability to reason.

Why does ANYTHING mean ANYTHING to a supposedly omnipotent being? You're telling me he created a load of beings, purposely gave them the ability to defy his will, merely to tell them that if they do so there will be consequences (whatever your particular take on that is, a worse room in heaven, a firely den in hell, non-existence - whatever floats your particular boat)? Does your god have an ego problem or what?

Pretty simple rules to understand actually and very, very logical.

Well I certainly haven't seethed a kid in its mother's milk recently - highly logical, AND highly relevant for today's society of goat herders.

The basic issue with your use of induction is that you fail to acknowledge that the biological mechanisms for building life are vastly different to the mechanics involved in creating a painting. It is a very, VERY tired creationist canard. There's nothing more complicated to it than that.

[tomcalab]

181. Freedom of Speech

"dammit" = cursing,or swearing, or ?

I thought you were upset because you were cursing. I am 53 years old and cursing was not widely accepted until recently as a part of polite conversation.

I, in no way, was implying that you do not have freedom of speech. You do. But remember, choose your words carefully because other people have other backgrounds. When I want to get my ideas across to more people I use polite language. When I hear people cusing around me in public, I move away from them.

I have had problems with people thinking I was upset when all I thought was that I was being passionate, so I can certainly relate. The reality is...you can not control how others interpret you. Lawyers are quite deliberate in everything they say and how they say it.

People will think you are by what you say.

......Good day.

[cyborg_jim]

187. And...?

Now we have the language lesson out of the way, do you have anything to say about the meat of the post?

[tomcalab]

193. Back to Logic

If you have time look this over. I would appreciate any critical comments you may have.

Thanks.



Given; Cause=Creator, and Effect=Existing atoms

And...
A=Atheist B=Believer

Question #1. Is the cause necessary and sufficient?

Is a creator necessary for atoms to exist? A=No, B=Yes

Is it sufficient to say that a creator made atoms because they exist? A=No B=Yes

Question #2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Is it possible that a creator can make atoms? A=No B=Yes

Question #3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

Could some other cause stop atoms from existing? A=No B=Yes

Summary:

1)Atoms exist because?
Atheists say the effect is sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.
Believers say the effect is not sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.

2)Can atoms be created?
Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator. Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Athism is a religion. See Footnote (a) below.

Believers say a creator is capable of creating atoms.

3)Could something have stopped atoms from existing?

To be fair, Atheists are mixed on this, but most I've heard are saying: I am because I am, inevitable pathways, algorhythus, inherant properties of matter. So my guess is that they would say nothing could stop atoms from existing because they exist.
Believers say atoms do not have to exist because they were created.

Footnotes:
a)
Atheist: "I am because I am"

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

Most Aetheists I've heard are also saying that the universe is infinite. It's really hard for me to imagine that. Almost as hard as it is for an Atheist to beleive in spirits.

However...

Most beleivers I've heard say that the universe is finite, and there is something beyond called heaven.

[cyborg_jim]

222. Well I'll try to penetrate that mess

1)Atoms exist because?
Atheists say the effect is sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.
Believers say the effect is not sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.

NO.

Believers say the effect is an anthropomorphic projection of themsevles.
Atheists say that is damn silly - stop reading old books and do some astrophysics if you really want to find out.

2)Can atoms be created?
Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator.

Atheists say believers are projecting an anthropomorphic face onto physical processes. The process by which atoms were formed at the start of the universe is described, without the need for Jesus to hold quarks together thank you very much.

Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Athism is a religion. See Footnote (a) below.

Um, no. You believers do sure like saying atheism is a religion though. I guess it helps comfort your own irrational choices to believe in ancient mythology to simply project that back onto us.

Most Aetheists I've heard are also saying that the universe is infinite. It's really hard for me to imagine that. Almost as hard as it is for an Atheist to beleive in spirits.

You believe in an omni-omni god - with all the logical problem that entails - yet an infinite universe is a really hard thing to imagine? Umm...

Footnotes:
a)
Atheist: "I am because I am"

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

Atheism is a stance on deities, not metaphysics. So no. Unless you are determined to be an asshole about it.

Most beleivers I've heard say that the universe is finite, and there is something beyond called heaven.

What rot. Most believers (most people infact) couldn't form a cogent opinion on the physics of the universe, let alone make a metaphysical jump to assume that there's a place called heaven that is somehow extra-universal.

Overall opinion - I really don't think, despite your scientific protests, you really have a clue about any of these issues - and I think it's because you've been spending more time reading the Bible than scientific journals. You certainly don't understand that atheism is not a catch-all for a collection of various philosophical stances you are ascribing to it simply because many atheists happen to do so. You really need to get away from this mental image you have of everything needing some guiding hand to form it. "Why, where do atoms come from? Jesus' hands!" No, what exactly is the problem you have with the mathematical descriptions of the process that simply has the construction of atoms as a natural process, just like everything else? Where does the need for a face behind it come?

This is the first and last time I will respond to a giant strawman of a post like this. If you want to hear what an atheist has to say on this issue you can damn well ask them instead of making up shit.

[tomcalab]

248. Time Not Well Spent

I have not read your response in its entirety. With all long responses I immediately jump to the end of the response. It is at the end where people sum up their thoughts. I think I have an idea of what to expect after reading your last line:

(profanity is censored)
"This is the first and last time I will respond to a giant strawman of a post like this. If you want to hear what an atheist has to say on this issue you can d--n well ask them instead of making up
s--t."

I put together something and asked people to comment on it. I did not expect them to get upset with me, I only wanted constructive engagement. I am here for an exchange of ideas.

Many here have been very insightful, and I appreciate the time and energy that some have put into their responses. I'm sorry, but after reading your last line, I will not be reading the rest of your response. I'm afraid your time was not spent well.

Peace Be Unto You.

[cyborg_jim]

251. "I am here for an exchange of ideas. "

(profanity is censored)

Who asked you to? Who made you the moral arbiter of what is or is not profanity? Total humbug.

Many here have been very insightful, and I appreciate the time and energy that some have put into their responses. I'm sorry, but after reading your last line, I will not be reading the rest of your response. I'm afraid your time was not spent well.

Why did you bother to write this reply? To piss me off? To fail to acknowledge the point that you are putting words in other people's mouths? That not using a word like 'fuck' does not automatically make what you say less offensive? Are you going to STOP writing gaint posts with made-up exchanges between atheists and believers (which I assume excludes 'wrong' theists)? No? Then you can drop the politeness facade.

[tomcalab]

256. So am I

I have pasted your response below (profanities censored, but still recognizable for those who appreciate their use), and have inserted my responses.

--------------------------------


"Who made you the moral arbiter of what is or is not profanity?"

Response: I have a moral obligation to myself to not perpetuate something that I feel may be irreverent or vulgar to someone else. I did not condemn the use of profanities. I also feel it is important to "note" whenever I have to edit the original post.


profane 
1. characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2. not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred).
3. unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
4. not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5. common or vulgar.



You are free to say whatever you like, I am not the moderator, and I can not delete your post. If people want to read your profanity uncensored, they can read your post; I prefer not to offend the readers of my posts. This is a personal choice I make.

--------------------------------------

"Why did you bother to write this reply? To p--s me off?"

Response: No.

-----------------------------------------

"To fail to acknowledge the point that you are putting words in other people's mouths? That not using a word like 'f--k' does not automatically make what you say less offensive?"

Response: My censoring profanity is not putting words in other people's mouths.

----------------------------------------------

Are you going to STOP writing giant posts with made-up exchanges between atheists and believers (which I assume excludes 'wrong' theists)? No? Then you can drop the politeness facade.

Response: I am unaware of any made-up exchanges anywhere, and I prefer to remain polite to those with whom I am exchanging dialog.
---------------------------------------

Good day........

[beam me up scottie]

262. Well said. And a "giant strawman of a post" is putting it mildly.

Personally I've found it increasingly difficult to refrain from using profanity after being told my atheism is a religion.

You showed remarkable restraint.

:)

[Random_Australian]

226. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=90266&mesg_id=90820

(you made the same reply twice)

[beam me up scottie]

109. You're the one who claims faith is more logical than science.

You picked the wrong venue, in this forum you don't get a free pass when you make ridiculous claims.

None of us expect DU theists to provide evidence that their personal deities exist, probably because we know they can't. That's why it's called "faith".

You, however, claim scientific theory is illogical, Intelligent Design is fact and that your god is not only obviously real, but that he provides all of the answers that science can't.

And now when you're asked to back up your bullshit, you complain about the big mean old atheists. :eyes:


Face it, the reason you won't answer my question is because you can't.

Your god of the gaps is no more logical or credible than invisible dragons and pink unicorns.

[tomcalab]

115. Right Venue for a Believer?

I have picked the right venue, because I was looking for ideas that would challenge me.

I really do appreciate everything that everyone has written. I am learning. I want to understand others by listening to ideas that I might have never have thought of if I didn't come here.

If I am doing something wrong, I'll be glad to stop or leave.

I do not believe scientific theory is illogical, but I have seen for myself how data can be misinterpreted or misrepresented. It has been my experience that people find what they are looking for, and it is hard for some to see the forest for the trees.

Scientists are always updating their understanding of God's creation, but then that is understandable since God is the creator and we are the creation.

I love science, and I love logic, so it will be interesting where this path leads me. I look forward to intelligent debates even if the other person is not an expert. Discussion is good. It not only confirms what you already know, but it opens new horizons of thought. I do not limit myself to the ever changing notions of man's interpretation of available scientific data.

Right now I am suffering from a horrible skin disorder that modern medicine can not explain, nor cares to address. The doctors simply do not have the funds to figure out what is wrong with me. Some doctors have refused to believe my symptoms. So much so that one doctor actually refused to allow me to show him what happens to my skin when I am exposed to 100 miligauss of electromagnet energy.

Doctor's and scientists do have agendas. Some are out to disprove the existence of a creator, while some become believers once they look over the facts available to them.

I have done my best to present my thoughts in a respectful way. If I am so stupid then why even mess with me? I am not stupid. I have valid points, and I have obviously attracted the attention of some people. Why I have attracted them is quite evident by the nature and substance of the responses.

It's all good.

[Finder]

121. Interesting you mention EMF...

An effect has been observed, although well under 100 milligauss, on portions of the brain resulting in hallucinations. Ghosts, aliens, etc...

As far as having an effect on the skin, did your doc test your blood for iron level?

I will look for a link regarding the research on emf and hallucinations.

[tomcalab]

139. More Info for You

I've seen a number of doctors and specialists, one research dermatologist. I did have an MRI of my brain done about 2 years ago.....plenty of grey matter and nothing abnormal.

I only have isolated reactions to Emfs so too much iron in the blood would not seem as a logical factor.

I have found a site in Sweden related to EMFs. It seems there are over 200,000 Swedes who have problems similar, and even identical to mine. In Sweden they have a national health care, and the government is not yet taking the problem seriously enough to fund any major research. Reminds me a lot of how AIDs was first dealt with here in the USA.

Don't spend any time on looking for information for me. I appreciate the offer, but I am taking some time off from seeing doctors.

Also, I have undergone physiological testing also, and I am as "normal" as the next guy. I have never had any hallucinations, never seen a ghost, or been abducted by aliens. I've never seen anything out of the ordinary.

I am a very sane, and logical person who has been convinced that God exists not only by what I have read, but by my own experiences.

I can not experience God for you, nor can I demand that God come to earth and go on TV. I would suggest that you study the lives of the apostles after Jesus died, especially Paul, and then ask yourself why would these men do what they did (up to there deaths) if they really didn't believe
in God. Put yourself in their shoes,and then figure out their motivation.

If you have anything that has influenced you greatly, I would be most interested in reading it.

Thank you for your responses....I wish you well.

[Finder]

140. I have studied religion/theology in-depth (still do)...

including hebrew and greek textual criticism. I am a former believer. As far as Saul/Paul goes...he also believed in God when he was persecuting others according to the story.

[tomcalab]

148. That's Right

Paul was a pharisee, a big wig in the Jewish church. He was on his way to Damascus to round up and persecute believers in christ when he was personally confronted by the then risen Jesus. Needless to say, he immediately became a believer and suffered persecution and eventually death because he could not deny his experience.

Paul had it made...he had no reason what so ever to believe in christ other than he could simply not deny what he had experienced. It's the same way with all the other apostles. All but John suffer horrible deaths because they refused to deny what they knew they could not.

If you play a little Sherlock Holmes, try to figure out motives, and do as much research from as many resources as possible...you'll come up with the right decision.

Again....any Biblical accounting should be thoroughly investigated by at least three different sources. The more diverse the sources, the better. I've used Strong's concordance, and I would love to learn hebrew and greek for my further studies.

Have fun with it...I just love doing this stuff. And the benefits are great. lol

[Finder]

174. There are rarely 3 sources to confirm bible accounts...

Let me give you a challenge...read the writings of David Koresh or Rev Moon and Joseph Smith and tell me what you think their motives were/are...

Should we accept their claims? How about Jehovah Witnesses?

[tomcalab]

183. Know Your Sources

What comes up quite regularly is knowing why people interpret things the way they do. It is important to always investigate your sources.

Also, if opinions vary too wildly then just as with data populations one should be able to determine any outliers by how the data deviates from itself.

In other words...if there is too much variation in what your sources tell you...don't stop collecting information until you can determine who is out in left field.

Cults are defined with certain characteristics and can be weeded out.

[Finder]

184. But didn't Jesus and the apostles do just that according to scripture?

Christianity was considered a cult for 300 yrs was it not?

[tomcalab]

186. Yes

Yes...and I dare say that some of it still is.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

[beam me up scottie]

263. Your pathetic straw men and circular reasoning don't invite challenge.

They invite derision and intellectual smack-downs by atheists, skeptics and scientists.

And that's exactly what you've gotten.

Doctors and scientists are not "out to disprove the existence of a creator" and anyone who believes that has much more to worry about than just a skin disorder.




When you declare religious faith to be more logical than science, christians to be morally superior, and repeatedly dismiss centuries of work done by scientists who truly ARE holding the only candle in the dark, expect disrespect of your beliefs, and expect a lot of it.

[Random_Australian]

170. I'm here.

"My understanding is that God put together the atoms and made the universe, but God is not made of those same atoms."

And? What property of this 'thing' influences atoms in such a way that a creator is needed?

"When it comes to God himself...he is described as a spirit, and he is eternal"

When it comes to the big bang... it is described as the start of time. ie. no antecedant of any kind is even possible.

"Nor do I know if it is possible, but we do have eye-witness accounts of their existence."

Oh really? Correct me if I am wrong, but I could have sworn you had eye-witness accounts of an interpretation of incident information.

"but for now I believe the debate is confined by atheists to that which can only be measured in the physical world"

BRING IT. You make an assertion like that, it is time to do some backing-up of your claims.

For instance, take all the scientist atheists.

Do you know what science is all about?

Measure everything that you can measure.

That includes anything that has any effect, because we simply measure that effect.


"Either way......logic would have it that something is not made from nothing"

Please, show me this logic. It sounds... fantastical.


"A painting proves there was a painter. A building proves that there was a builder"

Sure does. So what? Take a look at the difference between life and a building.

Life never had to be like this.

"Pretty simple, once you open your mind to the idea of spirits"

My mind is open. Got any evidence, sling it my way. :)

"Atheists can not explain where the atom came from"

And of course, you would have access to the reasons God decided to make things as they are... as this or similar is of course what seperates a real explanation from an argument from ignorance.


" Something created the atom, or are we all simply imagining all this?"

I'll pick choice 3 - none of the above.

"Who are we, his creation, to question his work?"

Question: Is curing tuberculosis questioning his work?

If not, then what is so special about TB that we can only talk about it and not the evidence for and against the notion of a creator?

"We do not have the hands to make atoms out of a vacume."

And? Where, exactly, did I propose that humans created the world?

[tomcalab]

176. Excellent Questions!

Good day...I've pasted you response below and have inserted my responses.

__________________________

My understanding is that God put together the atoms and made the universe, but God is not made of those same atoms."

And? What property of this 'thing' influences atoms in such a way that a creator is needed?

Response: Don't know. What is "charm" to atomic physicists?


"When it comes to God himself...he is described as a spirit, and he is eternal"

When it comes to the big bang... it is described as the start of time. ie. no antecedant of any kind is even possible.

Response:Okay, then how about; In the beginning, God said "Bang". The creator has to start somewhere.


"Nor do I know if it is possible, but we do have eye-witness accounts of their existence."

Oh really? Correct me if I am wrong, but I could have sworn you had eye-witness accounts of an interpretation of incident information.

Response: estimates are that as many as 1 million people followed Moses. Their history is recorded and it has not been challenged by any one who was present or passed down to for over 3000 years. If anything was incorrect, there would be different accountings. Talk with an Orthodox Jew who knows the history of the Bible.

"but for now I believe the debate is confined by atheists to that which can only be measured in the physical world"

BRING IT. You make an assertion like that, it is time to do some backing-up of your claims.

For instance, take all the scientist atheists.

Response: I was referring to many of the responses that I have received on this thread. I'm sorry if I did not explain myself well enough. Thanks for questioning me on it.

Do you know what science is all about?

Response: I was a Land Surveyor for 30 years, and I have worked with biologists, geologist, archaeologists, photogrammetrists, civil engineers, and many other types of scientists and professionals.


Measure everything that you can measure.

That includes anything that has any effect, because we simply measure that effect.

Response:So....then every time you measure something you are measuring the effect of God's work.


"Either way......logic would have it that something is not made from nothing"

Please, show me this logic. It sounds... fantastical.

Response: I can not show you logic, does that mean it doesn't exist. Logic exists in the minds of billions of people. Otherwise, I made the statement...not someone else. I just kinda thought it sounded...well....logical.


"A painting proves there was a painter. A building proves that there was a builder"

Sure does. So what? Take a look at the difference between life and a building.

Response: Man has yet to breath life into a mass of atoms. Where does the breath of life come from? Chance? If life is so inevitable then one would think we could create it from the atomic elements God used.

Life never had to be like this.

"Pretty simple, once you open your mind to the idea of spirits"

My mind is open. Got any evidence, sling it my way.

Response: Plenty of evidence, it's your choice to find it. Actually, according to the Bible, some say God lives inside everyone. Now isn't that a nice warm and fuzzy thought. My experience says it's true, but I can not experience it for you. Hint:It starts with that little voice in your head called conscience.

"Atheists can not explain where the atom came from"

And of course, you would have access to the reasons God decided to make things as they are... as this or similar is of course what separates a real explanation from an argument from ignorance.

Response: I never accused anyone of being ignorant in this thread. How could I? I argue the atom thing as an example of why neither case for, or against a creator can be known. Many of the reasons God made things the way they are are contained in the Bible, and happen to agree with modern science quite well even though it was written over 3000 years ago.


" Something created the atom, or are we all simply imagining all this?"

I'll pick choice 3 - none of the above.

Response: And that of course is you prerogative. But what is your choice based on?


"Who are we, his creation, to question his work?"

Question: Is curing tuberculosis questioning his work?

Response: No, questioning his work is not curing disease. Read the book of "Job" it will explain what questioning his work means.

If not, then what is so special about TB that we can only talk about it and not the evidence for and against the notion of a creator?

Response:Nothing. I do not discount evolution. A creator would want to design adaptability into his creation. We know micro-organisms evolve, insects become tolerant to chemicals, and of course certain behaviors welcome disease. The Bible contains health and food guidance (kosher) that, when followed, tend to minimize disease. And of course, Kosher is within FDA guidelines- lol


"We do not have the hands to make atoms out of a vacuum."

And? Where, exactly, did I propose that humans created the world?

Response: That is not what I wanted the analogy to imply. I was only trying to explain that God is not like anything here on earth.

Thank you for some really good questions. I really enjoyed your post.

Cheers

[ironbark]

229. When it comes to the big bang...

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?".
Sura 21 verse 30, Quran .

Two lucky guesses in one…..I wonder what the “error percentages” are?

;-)

[tomcalab]

249. Probability of 1 (one with God)

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness."

---Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

---Albert Einstein

[beam me up scottie]

261. So you can't answer the question, using logic or anything resembling it.

Patent Pending Bleever Response: Bring up Yahweh's eternalness, uniqueness, un-falsifiability and insert some buzzwords stolen from physics, the Big Bang and other scientific theories, yada, yada, yada, and finish by sticking the "God proved it by writing all of this in the Bible" cherry on top.

What a shock. :eyes:

You'd think God would give you guys the answers ahead of time so that you could edjumacate us heethens.

Doesn't he care that you look silly when you claim ID is more logical than evolution?

And by silly, I mean uneducated and willfully ignorant.

[tomcalab]

289. God Exists...

The thread started out as "There is a God (believe it)". I have however entertained others who were asking me to demonstrate the existence of God to them with physical proof and or logic. I have answered their questions as best I could. However, my OP was about what people believe.

When I say I believe in something, I am saying that I know it to be true, but am I saying that I can prove it?

The mind can only go so far with regards to what it knows, and what it can prove. Everyone reaches higher planes of knowledge, but they can never prove how they got there.

I can not prove to you that I have a "personal" God, but for me to say that he does not exist would make me a liar.

God exists in the minds of billions of people.


Thank you for your response.

[Random_Australian]

82. Organised chaos huh?

I have a sinking suspicion about something. Would you quickly run through what you think how evolution works, with specific reference to how often 'mutations' or similar occur in the population?

[tomcalab]

116. Body of Work

Do you have any specific body of work you would like me to comment on?

I may not have the credentials for which you would be willing to accept, but then I could say the same thing.

I have had 30 years experience with statistics and the theory of error of measurements. All statistics are only as good as the sample population, how well conditioned that data is to the bell shaped curve, the data's standard deviation, and the parameters set, and results for the Chi square test.

If you can direct me to any pertinent data to support your concerns, I would be more than willing to try and understand how said data applies to your suspicions. Otherwise, if you feel that I am ignorant about certain scientific facts, I would greatly appreciate your sharing that information so I may better understand your position on this debate.

Thank you for your sincere concern to educate and enlighten.

[immoderate]

127. So you love logic...

Then you should avoid the fallacy of affiming the consequent. You can't use the conclusion to prove the hypothesis.

You are also into circularity, another fallacy. Do you like logic well enough to use it properly?

--IMM

[tomcalab]

149. I did find

I found this article on the net.

If you want to...please explain your concerns using terms below and examples of how my comments are inadequate.

And then explain your logic for the existence of there not being a creator. I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove a creator, and less evidence to imply that atoms evolve from a vacuum.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Inductive argument can be defined as a statement to gain adherence which moves from specific instances to a general conclusion.



Here is an example: "I owned a Volkswagen Bug and it was a lousy car so I conclude that all Volkswagen Bugs are lousy cars."

Hopefully you can identify that this argument begins with a specific instance and ends or concludes with a broad conclusion. You may not agree with the above conclusion but that does not deny that this argument is inductive.

There are four types of inductive argument that I will discuss: cause-effect, generalization, sign, and analogy.

CAUSE EFFECT

"One condition or event contributes to or brings about another conditions or event" (Warnick, 107).

Did eating the raw fish make you feel sick? If so, then the raw fish is the cause and the sickness is the effect. Rather than examining a list of possible flaws or fallacies, Warnick provides a series of "tests" which can be applied to each type of argument. These tests are guidelines by which to build you argument. You, as the speaker, need to keep in mind your audience and which types of arguments will most and least likely persuade them .

TESTS for C/E

1. Is the cause necessary and sufficient?

A. Necessary means the cause must be present. In order to have fire there must be oxygen, a source of fuel, and a source of ignition. All three of these must be present in order to have a fire.

B. Sufficient cause means the cause guarantees the effect will occur. If you could eat raw fish one day and not get sick then eating raw fish is not a sufficient cause of your becoming sick.

2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Ask questions. Is there something wrong with the fish? Did anybody else get sick form eating the fish? Do you have some type of allergic reaction to fish that would allow only you to get sick?

3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

If the effect is becoming ill and you took a pill to prevent becoming ill then the pill is the offsetting cause and now the fish is no longer capable of producing the effect of sickness. OR you may have been coming down with the flu in which case it was the flu NOT the fish which caused you to be sick.

[immoderate]

155. Inductive arguments, by their nature, are weak...

You are asking some big questions. I posses no special knowledge in the field of cosmology except for having read a few books on physics, etc., much of which I cannot say I have mastered, so this is a lay view. (Quantum Electrodynamics = :shrug: )

First, let me say that the physics of the universe since a few nano or maybe femto-seconds after the big bang is fairly well worked out and requires no guiding hand to evolve into what we experience today. Matter and energy as we know them, are the result of the expansion from the initial conditions of the universe, sometimes called the "cosmic egg" from which came the "big bang." There is lots of evidence that this actually happened.

What led up to the big bang is speculative, because space and time as we know them were created at that moment. Where does it come from? Here is one treatment:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, 129)

More good stuff at: Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)

This neither confirms nor denies that there was a creator. It would help if you could describe such an entity, then we could analyze whether such a creature could exist. Realize that this is a unique event so analogies to buildings or watches are irrelevant, even more irrelevant than analogies usually are. What I can say is that if you stick to the argument that everything has a creator, you are begging the question, because then your creator must have a creator. And that creator must be more mighty and complex than our creator. So that argument breaks down.

So then we are faced with the question of how complex things can come from simpler things. You already have the example of primitive molecules spontaneously combining into amino acids, the building blocks of life. These have even been detected in outer space. Be aware that further evolution is guided by selection, and is not a random event. Consider snowflakes. The input here is simple water molecules. Yet each snowflake, exhibits more complex properties of geometry and symmetry that might leave one to believe that they are "designed" and constructed. They have an awesome beauty, but they are not random. Again, the process is understandable and reproducible and requires no intelligent guiding hand.

Similarly, many processes in the universe can understood by application of primitive principles to yield more complex structures, and by other principles such as "auto-catalysis" build even more complex results. This again does not rule out the hand of god, but that entity is not necessary to achieve these results and so is superfluous. The process known as "Occam's Razor" tells us to favor explanations which require the fewest assumptions. That is, why postulate a god if all this can occur without him/her/it? A careful reading of the Old Testament will show that god to be quite insane. Murderous, selfish, impulsive, cruel, arrogant and vain, that creature is hardly a good example for humanity.

As for the logic, you seem to be saying the fact that we exist proves that a god made us. DesCartes did build his career on this, but his logic was faulty too. In terms of the examples you gave, it breaks down this way, if it is true that if I eat fish, then I will get sick, it does not mean that if I am sick, I must have eaten fish. That is called the inverse, and its truth value has no relation to the original statement. It could be true or false. Another example: If it is raining, then I will get wet. If I am wet, however, that does not necessarily imply that it is raining. I could have been exercising, or hit with a water balloon, or just taken a shower.

Lastly, you seem to attribute the existence of some human traits such as conscience, or altruism, to some higher being. These however, are survival traits, and are instinctive behaviors and physiologically based, as has been cited in other posts. Analogous behaviors, such as food sharing, are observed in other species, who have no notion of a supreme being. These traits, while not necessarily advantageous to the individual, are beneficial to the species.

When you take a break from your bible studies you might want to peruse the following volumes, which I have found helpful: The Blind Watch Maker and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. Dawkins has a new book, which I haven't read yet, in which he directly tackles the existence of god, and Shermer has some earlier works in which he explains how people adopt belief systems. That would take you a lot farther than I could.

Again, welcome to DU;:hi: this is a fun place.

--IMM

[tomcalab]

192. Back to Logic

Thank you for the info, but right now I have major brain burn. How about you look over my attempt to explain my point of view with cause and effect logic. I listened to your advice and I found a website that explained cause and effect logic. I have tried to run my ideas through the tests but I would appreciate any critical thinking you have on it.

Thanks much for all of your valuable time and knowledge.

Here goes....

Given; Cause=Creator, and Effect=Existing atoms

And...
A=Atheist B=Believer

Question #1. Is the cause necessary and sufficient?

Is a creator necessary for atoms to exist? A=No, B=Yes

Is it sufficient to say that a creator made atoms because they exist? A=No B=Yes

Question #2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Is it possible that a creator can make atoms? A=No B=Yes

Question #3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

Could some other cause stop atoms from existing? A=No B=Yes

Summary:

1)Atoms exist because?
Atheists say the effect is sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.
Believers say the effect is not sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.

2)Can atoms be created?
Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator. Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Atheism is a religion. See Footnote (a) below.

Believers say a creator is capable of creating atoms.

3)Could something have stopped atoms from existing?

To be fair, Atheists are mixed on this, but most I've heard are saying: I am because I am, inevitable pathways, algorithms, inherent properties of matter. So my guess is that they would say nothing could stop atoms from existing because they exist.
Believers say atoms do not have to exist because they were created.

Footnotes:
a)
Atheist: "I am because I am"

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

Most Atheists I've heard are also saying that the universe is infinite. It's really hard for me to imagine that. Almost as hard as it is for an Atheist to believe in spirits.

However...

Most believers I've heard say that the universe is finite, and there is something beyond called heaven.

[immoderate]

206. There are a few things here I could comment on.

In discussing these matters it's a good idea to separate what is science from philosophy as much as we can. Up until the time of Newton, the whole thing was referred to as "natural philosophy" and then they branched off. That's roughly the time that the rules for scientific study were formulated, mainly by Sir Francis Bacon. The main idea is that scientific theory must be "falsifiable" meaning it can be shown to be true of false, at least in principle.

When I was very young, my mother told me that the thunder was god expressing his anger. This is not much different from the Old Testament view, as well as that of many religions. Some magic being, with great power -- Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yahweh, with control over nature, wills the thunder. Later on, I found out that certain atmospheric conditions can cause electrical charges to build up in clouds. When a critical point is reached, there is a large discharge, which causes an atmospheric disturbance, which is the sound we call thunder. This is logical and demonstrable, and the causes are easily understood. It doesn't rule out that god has a hand in it, but he is not necessary for existence of thunder. This is not proof that god has no hand in making thunder, but when I hear thunder, how do I know if it is a natural meteorological phenomenon, or the expression of an angry supreme being? The concept of parsimony, the simplest explanation, guides my thinking here. Since thunder is perfectly explainable without god, he doesn't enter into the picture. My mother also told me that babies come from god too. Later on, she gave me a book that had a different explanation, which meant that she knew better all the time.

Similarly, everything that has happened in the history of the universe is explainable without the intervention of a supreme being. This goes back to a "Planck time" (that's the shortest possible time) after the big bang. There is much physical evidence for this initial event, starting with the red shift observations of Hubble, and the predictions of background radiation artifacts, and their subsequent observations by the COBE satellite. And there is much more. What happened at the moment of the big bang or before, and why is just not known, and perhaps not knowable. Theists need to have this explanation, even if it is mythological. Atheists do not.

The early universe was very hot, and dense, and opaque. The concentration of energy did not allow for the formation of atoms for many thousands of years after the big bang. Matter, as we know it condensed out of that energy as the universe expanded and cooled down enough to allow it. It's kind of like rain drops condensing out of water vapor in the atmosphere. Some say god does it; I think of rain as a natural process. All the phenomena you cite as evidence for the existence of god, also have a natural explanation that doesn't require any such being. I hope you got a chance to look around that Creation ex hihilo site, which explains how something comes from nothing. That was a find.

I'm a bit surprised that the atheists you know think the universe is infinite. It's not. It all started with one event, and has expanded from that for some 15 billion years. According to current cosmological view if you set out in a direction and traveled in a straight line for long enough, you would return to your starting point. The analogy is the same as traveling on the earth. But it is more dimensionally complex. I guess being an atheist does not necessarily mean you understand science.

BTW, the fastest way to get flamed around here is to call atheism a religion. That's one of the few things that most of the resident atheists are most adamant about. It's like calling barefoot a type of shoe. Atheism, to most of us, simply means without god. Theists, who take the existence of god for granted think of atheists as those who refuse to recognize the existence of god. that's not how atheists see it. Just like theirs no special category for people who don't believe in astrology or Santa Claus, atheism is not a belief. Atheism also lacks the features usually associated with religion, a deity, dogmas, rituals, clergy, an ideological purpose, etc.

There is a place for things that live outside the universe, like heaven, It's called the imagination. Religion and philosophy generally attack the questions of why. Atheists don't. If they have any such notions, it's generally personal and aesthetic, and totally individual. Humanism supplies the answers for some. A philosopher called St. Anselm proposed the "teleological" argument based on the notion of cause and effect. He said everything has a cause, and so there must have been a first cause, and this is what we call god. A careful examination of his logic will show that this doesn't prove or explain anything, but it was good enough to get him a sainthood.

I know this is somewhat outside the ideas of cause and effect you mapped out but what I talked about is settled science. Surely, there are gaps in our knowledge, but they are narrowing all the time. As far as god goes he is, with all his great powers, sufficient to have brought this all about, but he is not necessary. There's really nothing for him to do.

I know this doesn't prove anything. That can't be done. I just explain why the notion of god makes no sense to me.

--IMM

[tomcalab]

209. The Notion of Infinity

Yeah, I hear you. As far as logic goes, both sides are hard to swallow.

Either:

1) There is a God which we can not comprehend.

2) Or there is an infinite universe which we can not comprehend.

Both arguments have the incomprehensible in them.

[immoderate]

213. The universe is not infinite...

But that's just a technical point. It's very large and I think it's purpose and origin is unknowable. I agree that if there is a god, his purpose is incomprehensible. I suggest there is no notion god you could describe that makes sense. That's why I don't buy the whole idea. God is just not necessary in this universe. It doesn't really explain anything.

On edit: I want to add that I do believe the universe is comprehensible. That's just a basic belief of mine.

--IMM

[tomcalab]

214. Hurray! ......We Agree!.....God is Not Necessary

I agree, God does not really explain anything in the universe.

You're absolutely right!

I agree 100%!

Amen!

That is a really significant common ground we just found!

A believer and an Atheist have agreed that God is not necessary to explain the universe. Why? Because God does or does not exist...no....because humans can measure and analyze to their heart's content to describe the physical world without introducing God, or God(i),or God(j) into any equation they develop.

Now when it comes to stating for a fact that the creator does not exist...that's different.

If we did embrace intelligent design, what's the difference? Equations are equations...right?

So what if God said "bang" and then created all these "pathways" I keep hearing about. It's the pathways that concern us, not the Bang or even if there was a bang. We can't go back and see what happened...so just drop it. It's all scientific mythology based on pure conjecture.

Now if you want to make projections about what will happen in the future since all this mass was put into motion, I have no problem with that at all. It's logical...it can be measured...I love science...I love logic....I love mathematics...I am so thankful for all scientists.

So...let's compromise....Science is taught in schools with this disclaimer; "The existence of God is not necessary to explain the universe as we know it. This does not mean that God does not exist, it only means that scientists have yet to verify it".

When it comes to evolution, I don't see where the 95% confidence error ellipses on data could possibly be good enough to hang a DC-10 on. We're talking about major extrapolations (carbon dating) and assumptions about the few remains we have found that make the whole science a belief system more than a proven fact.

So what if someone calculated DNA mutates every 100,000 years. What is the probable error on that figure? And what assumptions were made in order to even start the calculation?

I know I don't know everything, but I'm not stupid! Does anyone remember "significant figures", "standard deviation". Not one response here has even mentioned either one. How well do you really know something? Do people understand that the average value of a data set has error which can be measured?

Anyway thanks for listening, I know I said some things that will get people all fired up. Well Good! I'm glad, because there are millions of people just like me who want to know the truth about what science really "knows" and, with what certainty they know it.

Science books and schools need to stop the deception.

As far as the benefits of having intelligent design, take a look at this other response I gave.

The question posed to me was basically what would happen if God died?

---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------

What would happen if God died?

I really don't know, but I'll go ahead and entertain your thoughts with something.

The earth....
Let's say I put together an aquarium, and then leave it with no one to look after it. What would happen?

Each one of us......

Did you see the movie "Cast Away"? Tom Hanks was marooned on an island with no other humans to talk to or listen to. Out of his need to talk to someone, he put a face on a coconut and started talking to it. If God were no longer in our conscience then I would expect that we would recognize that we were alone, and create something in our mind that was nowhere near God's equivalent. We could talk to God's replacement, but we could not receive his love. We, as Tom Hanks did, would go mad.

The most successful addiction recovery programs all acknowledge a "Higher Power" so that the human is no longer at the mercy of the substance.

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html


My experience is that when people, for what ever reason, decide to ignore their conscience they become more and more angry with themselves and with others, or become depressed. On the other hand, those who do turn inward and listen to their conscience find peace.

I believe that the very first prayer God gives us to use in the Old Testament is:

Num 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
Num 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
Num 6:26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.


Thank you so much for asking this question.

[greyl]

217. It appears to me

that the God you conceptualize exists only in the imagination. You've said that what people believe about God has detectable effects in the world, but not God Himself. Your replies to the line of inquiry into what you think would happen if God were removed from the world show that, don't they?

"Let's say I put together an aquarium, and then leave it with no one to look after it. What would happen?"

A lot would happen. Much of it would depend on the intelligence, survival skills, and resources available to the creatures you've put into the aquarium. If the creatures are lizards, their only chance of survival would be to stop waiting for you to return, and find a way to escape into the world that lizards evolved in for millions of years. If the creatures are fish, they're certainly doomed because you've contrived an environment in which their survival depends on your care. However, the aquarium would probably begin teeming with other forms of self-organizing, self-perpetuating life which could be as interesting to watch as fish.

The effects of your absence on the aquarium are predictable, because the effects of your care are so obvious.

[tomcalab]

239. Yes or No

Very good! Thank you for taking the time to answering the question. I appreciate your time and thought and I agree with much of what you said.

There is evidence of the existence of God, some physical, some not. That evidence is being debated here and between millions of others. I see no reason to stop the debate.

Can you agree with the following statement?

"The existence of God is not necessary to explain the universe as we know it. This does not mean that God does not exist, it only means that scientists have yet to verify it".

Yes or No?

[beam me up scottie]

264. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, WHAT evidence of the existence of God?

You keep saying you have evidence, physical and otherwise, but you haven't produced any.

Are we supposed to take your word for it?

The baboon in the White House says God speaks to him, if we believe you, we'd have to believe him as well.

[tomcalab]

290. There is Evidence.

"You keep saying you have evidence, physical and otherwise, but you haven't produced any.

Are we supposed to take your word for it?"


Response: There is a lot of data suggesting, or claiming that a god exists, ie. cultures, recorded accountings.
Also, there are types of evidence other than physical evidence. In Law there is Anecdotal, Testimonial, Statistical, and Analogical Evidence.

Have you gone looking for any? Are you asking for my assistance?


-------------------------------------------

The baboon in the White House says God speaks to him, if we believe you, we'd have to believe him as well?

Response: You're logic is not quite clear to me. But I will say; I am not asking you to blindly believe me, nor am I trying to "convert" anyone. Coming to know God is not by demonstration, it is by revelation. I can not will my will on anyone, but I can share my beliefs.
------------------------------------------

I hope I have cleared up any questions you may have.

Thank you for your response.

[beam me up scottie]

292. Psychobabble-English translation: "No, I have no evidence that God exists"

You could have saved everyone a lot of trouble if you had just admitted that the first time you were asked.

Or, even better, if you hadn't made the claim to begin with.

Atheists don't usually ask for proof of god(s) unless and/or until we're told some exists and we just can't see it.

YOU made the extraordinary claim, it's up to you to back it up.

Thank you for your response.

[greyl]

270. I would answer "yes" but for your qualification.

"The existence of God is not necessary to explain the universe as we know it. This does not mean that God does not exist, it only means that scientists have yet to verify it."

Furthermore, the lack of necessity for the existence of an entity in order to explain the universe isn't a test of its existence, nor does it logically follow that if an entity isn't necessary to explain the universe that scientists haven't verified its existence. Iow, the existence of Gary Larsen's The Far Side cartoons are scientifically verifiable, but they aren't necessary to explain the universe. Ok, bad example. How 'bout Family Circus?

[tomcalab]

293. Duplicate...Please delete!

Very well said, and thank you for your time and energy.

I completely agree that the statement needed the word "only". And if I understand your additional comments correctly then:

"Furthermore, the lack of necessity for the existence of an entity in order to explain the universe isn't a test of its existence,"

Response: Science without Religion is crippled.

And:

"nor does it logically follow that if an entity isn't necessary to explain the universe that scientists haven't verified its existence."

Response: Religion without Science is Blind.


Do you consider yourself a deeply religious non-believer?

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Sincerly...

[tomcalab]

294. a deeply religious non-beleiver?

Very well said, and thank you for your time and energy.

I completely agree that the statement needed the word "only". And if I understand your additional comments correctly then:

"Furthermore, the lack of necessity for the existence of an entity in order to explain the universe isn't a test of its existence,"

Response: Science without Religion is crippled.

And:

"nor does it logically follow that if an entity isn't necessary to explain the universe that scientists haven't verified its existence."

Response: Religion without Science is Blind.


Do you consider yourself a deeply religious non-believer?

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Sincerly...

[greyl]

302. No, your inclusion of "only" is why I'm not answering "yes".

So, if God were removed from the world, what would happen, iyo?

[tomcalab]

295. Please Delete

[Random_Australian]

223. Puh! And what on earth science have you been reading?

Because let me tell you, while no mention of error goes into silly little media articles, the peer-review journals mention all the damn errors and margins of error that are not taken for granted, and most of those that are.

What's more, even written figures have implied error. When someone writes "one hundred thousand years" they have it all wrong - it ought to be written in one of the standard forms. For instance, 2.0 centimetres means the measurement could take any value between 2.05 and 19.95.

Or you can write them explicitly, or as percentages.

Error makes up a large component of what we do in science - it is considered extremely important. When something is authored for the public, it leaves out an enourmous amount of this stuff, but when you want to design an experiment you go to the real values.

For instance, with a circuit I was using the other day, for every frequency, we were measuring the voltages. Did we record voltages? No, we recorded the number of divisions the waveform, the amount of error in our reading, and the setting for volts/division.

Science progresses by measurement. Error is taught as integral in getting any kind of measurement.

Just because it does not look like it is that way, does not mean it is not that way.

[tomcalab]

240. Agreed?

"Because let me tell you, while no mention of error goes into silly little media articles, the peer-review journals mention all the damn errors and margins of error that are not taken for granted, and most of those that are."

I agree with the media part, I know for a fact that every time a number is mentioned in a peer review journal, except in articles that address error, the probable error is not "always" supplied. One has to look up that error from where it was calculated, either in another article, or in a report.

------------------------------

"What's more, even written figures have implied error. When someone writes "one hundred thousand years" they have it all wrong - it ought to be written in one of the standard forms. For instance, 2.0 centimetres means the measurement could take any value between 2.05 and 19.95."

The number 2.0 implies to me that it lies somewhere between 1.95 and 2.05. There is however an issue with, accuracy, systematic error, and blunders. As you can see from your response above, blunders do happen. "between 2.05 and 19.95." I'm sorry I had to point out your mistake to prove my point. The important thing about blunders is not whether or not you do them, but rather whether you catch them. To error is human, it takes a computer to really mess things up! - lol

---------------------------------

"Error makes up a large component of what we do in science - it is considered extremely important. When something is authored for the public, it leaves out an enormous amount of this stuff, but when you want to design an experiment you go to the real values."

I agree. But I know that scientists do have to make assumptions on what is "real". I call them "benchmarks". A lot of work is based on benchmarks. Benchmarks can introduce error which appears to be systematic error when in fact there is none.

I agree that meta-data (data about the data) is critical to any project, and peer review is essential, but what are we teaching our children? And what is the probable error of the information that we are feeding them. It's not the competent scientists I'm so much worried about, it's what is being fed to the masses.

------------------------------

"For instance, with a circuit I was using the other day, for every frequency, we were measuring the voltages. Did we record voltages? No, we recorded the number of divisions the waveform, the amount of error in our reading, and the setting for volts/division."

I do not know much about voltages, but I think I get the idea. The instrument you were using measured the components that make up voltages? Assuming I m correct then:

I would consider the probable error of the instrument. Usually defined as, a number followed by the plus and minus value for the "standard error of the mean".

I would calibrate the instrument.

I would take as many measurements as was necessary to meet "quality control". I would do a statistical evaluation of the data to remove any outliers. I would make sure that the data falls within the bounds acceptable.

I would supply the data to the requester along with meta-data describing all serial numbers of instruments used to collect the data in case any systematic error was introduced, although a proper calibration schedule would tend to minimize systematic.

A lot of scientists use data but they don't like the mundane task of collecting it. This leaves a lot of data collection to technicians.

----------------------------------------------------

"Science progresses by measurement. Error is taught as integral in getting any kind of measurement"

Many of the scientists I have worked with didn't excel in the theory of error in measurements. But, your right, every measurement contains error.

-----------------------------------

"Just because it does not look like it is that way, does not mean it is not that way"

My point exactly. Scientists usually go looking for something. Whether or not they find it does not mean it exists.

Agreed?

----------------------------

I really, really enjoyed this exchange. It is one of the few times I could talk to someone at this level. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Cheers..............

[Random_Australian]

279. Respondó Randomesque -

"One has to look up that error from where it was calculated"

Or better put, one CAN look up that error. Copies are made. You need the error, you find the error. But when you are trying to learn, whether p = 1/1000 or 1/2000 makes little difference to the argument.

"The number 2.0 (..) somewhere between 1.95 and 2.05. (..)to prove my point. The important thing about blunders is not (...) whether you catch them. (...), it takes a computer to really mess things up! - lol"

Oh. A typo. How ebmarrassing.

"I agree. But I know that scientists do have to make assumptions on what is "real". "

Yeah, I make assumptions like that all the time - for instance, just the other day I assumed that I was not delusional and that I was not dreaming at the time of taking the measurements.

"but what are we teaching our children? "

The children who are going to be taking the data get good teaching, because they become scientists. If they really don't go well then they won't be good at error either, because of the positive correlation on all tests.

"Many of the scientists I have worked with didn't excel in the theory of error in measurements"

See sentence immediately proceeding. :)


"My point exactly. Scientists usually go looking for something. Whether or not they find it does not mean it exists."

I would change one vital word - replace 'Scientists' with 'humans'. Nothing special about scientists.

Cheers to you too, matey.

[tomcalab]

297. Equals Chaos

Good day...I've pasted your response below and have inserted my comments. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your time and energy.


""One has to look up that error from where it was calculated"

Or better put, one CAN look up that error. Copies are made. You need the error, you find the error. But when you are trying to learn, whether p = 1/1000 or 1/2000 makes little difference to the argument."

Response: The "Probable Error" of a value is critical to the accuracy of all science.

----------------------------------------------------------

""The number 2.0 (..) somewhere between 1.95 and 2.05. (..)to prove my point. The important thing about blunders is not (...) whether you catch them. (...), it takes a computer to really mess things up! - lol"

Oh. A typo. How ebmarrassing."

Response: In the Theory of Error this is defined as a blunder, and unless they are detected as an "outlier" during the statistical analysis of the data, they become a part of the answer.

Blunders will happen, the trick is catching them. One should not feel embarrassed that they are human, but one should always strive to understand their limitations.

----------------------------------------



""I agree. But I know that scientists do have to make assumptions on what is "real". "

Yeah, I make assumptions like that all the time - for instance, just the other day I assumed that I was not delusional and that I was not dreaming at the time of taking the measurements."

Response: I believe I was referring to "benchmarks" which have been scientifically produced. One assumes that the previous work is correct, and nothing has changed that would cause one to question the results of the previous work.

--------------------------------------

"but what are we teaching our children? "

The children who are going to be taking the data get good teaching, because they become scientists. If they really don't go well then they won't be good at error either, because of the positive correlation on all tests.

Response: I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you referring to the Correlation Coefficient of a Least-Squares adjustment? or are you saying that good test scores make good scientists?

--------------------------------
""Many of the scientists I have worked with didn't excel in the theory of error in measurements"

See sentence immediately proceeding."

Response: So then I guess you are saying that good test scores is proof that we have good scientists. If that's true then I would ask, what happens when a test is easy to pass?

----------------------------

"My point exactly. Scientists usually go looking for something. Whether or not they find it does not mean it exists."

I would change one vital word - replace 'Scientists' with 'humans'. Nothing special about scientists.

Response: Scientists start their research looking for something and they fashion their work on what they expect to find. Whether or not the discover something new that has never been thought of depends on a lot of variables, ie beliefs, funding, politics, etc...
---------------------

[Random_Australian]

303. Hello again.

"Oh. A typo. How ebmarrassing."

Response: In the Theory of Error this is defined as a blunder, and unless they are detected as an "outlier" during the statistical analysis of the data, they become a part of the answer.

Blunders will happen, the trick is catching them. One should not feel embarrassed that they are human, but one should always strive to understand their limitations."

You missed my sarcasm I am afraid - I deliberately misspelled 'embarrassing' because what you were responding to was a typo.

"Response: I believe I was referring to "benchmarks" which have been scientifically produced. One assumes that the previous work is correct, and nothing has changed that would cause one to question the results of the previous work."

This is because the results become asystematic when that happens (after a little while - in the short term it produces systematic errors) so after a little while the bad stuff is found and removed, as science is wont to do.


"Response: I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you referring to the Correlation Coefficient of a Least-Squares adjustment? or are you saying that good test scores make good scientists?"

Sorry, I have been studying too much psychology lately. Yes I am referring to 'r'. The reason I mention this is that a person's score on any test correlates positively with their score on every other test.

In other words, the scientists at the frontier are very good at their thing, and good at a lot of other things too. This means that there is a high rate of exceptional understanding of error near the top.


"Response: So then I guess you are saying that good test scores is proof that we have good scientists. If that's true then I would ask, what happens when a test is easy to pass? "

Nope, I'm not. See above.

"Response: Scientists start their research looking for something and they fashion their work on what they expect to find. Whether or not the discover something new that has never been thought of depends on a lot of variables, ie beliefs, funding, politics, etc..."

In some places, yes. When it comes to what, for instance, the new CERN accelerator will produce, the design did not take into account politics or beliefs. It had to take into account funding to some extent, but a lot of effort was sunk into it not being a problem.

But really, if you think belief (ie wanting results to be a certain way) influences general science, I would tell you to get ready to make a darn good case for your claims. :mad:

Ok, until next time! :hi: :)

[immoderate]

230. You agree 100%? (No error specified.)

I'm a fan of Fermi math, where complex calculations tend to mask out small variations and errors in small operations.

I would call evolution "proven fact" if you want to use unscientific terms. Evolution does not depend on mutation, but on natural variation. Mutations do play a part, and they are common, but most mutations are insignificant, most of the rest are detrimental to survival, so they don't last. Beneficial mutation is very rare, and has to enhance survival to be selected. It also has to overcome the "hump" of sexual attraction.

It's basically the variation and selection that drives evolution. To me, denying evolution is like denying logic, or like denying thermodynamics.

Again, it's apparent that god has no role in the workings of the universe. I think your disclaimer would be misleading. Science cannot determine the existence of god.

Also your assertions about the supposed benefits of belief are circular. If a belief in Santa Claus helps me deal with an addiction that doesn't say anything about the existence of Santa Claus. Beware of circularity. It is more indicative about how the mind works. In fact, most addictions end without the aid of any program. They end for many reasons. Death is one.

--IMM

[tomcalab]

242. God exists in the minds of billions of people.

I am not doubting all scientific evidence, I am doubting scientific conclusions. Every scientific problem first defines it's own framework. Everyone assumes the framework, and then proceeds. From that point, any conclusions formed are expressed in terms of the framework.

Example: Can we write an equation for a planet based on Earth as the center of the solar system? Yes, and we can (and have), but the limits of the equation would become a mathematical nightmare in order to account for the inevitable anomalies. The equation would become unmanageable and one would have to re-think one's initial framework. For me, this is what the theory of evolution has become.


For me, denying evolution is not like denying logic. Logic is a process, evolution a theory. I think people forget that it is called "The Theory of Evolution". Darwin's "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" is quite alarming if you're a female, or not a caucasian. His theory was created during the Victorian times, and conformed to the modern day beliefs of a conquering nation. Did his work improve the human condition? Yes, for those in power.

Is the goal now to conquer creationism? I don't think so, but I think some use it that way. I see all of the data collected and used by evolutionists as valuable and revealing.

You stated: "Science cannot determine the existence of god." You may be right. But science can prove the effects of God on people's lives.

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html


"When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends.

To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly."

--Albert Einstein


God exists in the minds of billions of people.

Thank you for your post.

[immoderate]

243. You mix apples and oranges well.

For me, denying evolution is not like denying logic. Logic is a process, evolution a theory. I think people forget that it is called "The Theory of Evolution". Darwin's "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" is quite alarming if you're a female, or not a caucasian. His theory was created during the Victorian times, and conformed to the modern day beliefs of a conquering nation. Did his work improve the human condition? Yes, for those in power.

I suspect that you are using the wrong definition of theory. In science, a theory is not some wild supposition; it is a set of principles which explains observed phenomena. If a theory fails to account for reality, it is discarded. For instance, gravity and atoms are also products of their respective theories. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and there are no phenomena extant which contradict this.

The theory of evolution may have been formulated during Victorian times but the process of evolution is as old as the universe. You have this all mixed up with your personal views. You would have us believe that evolution affects only post Victorian white humans? Do see how silly that is? What of all the other life forms that never heard of Darwin? Darwin didn't invent evolution any more than Einstein invented relativity.

The notion of god is, on the other hand, a cultural/psychological phenomenon. Gods and religions are related to the conditions of civilizations that invent them. Note the variations and lack of uniformity of the concept and worship of god. As you say, god exists in the minds of men, and that's the only place god exists. If man disappears, so does god, but evolution and relativity will go on.

Your study on suicides may be true. The effect of religious affiliation on suicides may be significant, but it is nonetheless quite small. I think it's the affiliation rather than the religion which explains this. It's effective for a small number of marginal people. There are plenty of atheists around here, and none, to my knowledge, has committed suicide. Compare that with some other data: The atheists are about 10% of the population, yet prison populations are less than .05% atheist. What does that do to your notion of conscience?

I wonder why theists quote Einstein so much. He was an atheist. That quote makes no case for the existence of god or a belief in god. There are lots of Einstein quotes on fundy sites; they are invariably out of context.

God exists in the minds of billions of people. But each god is different and is the product of that individual. There are also nearly a billion people who are without a god. But every single one of those people is a product of evolution.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

265. "Darwin didn't invent evolution"- Right to the point as usual, IMModerate.

"I wonder why theists quote Einstein so much. He was an atheist. That quote makes no case for the existence of god or a belief in god. There are lots of Einstein quotes on fundy sites; they are invariably out of context."

Why it's part of the Woo Woo Credo, of course! Number 36 to be specific:

36.) Quote Einstein, and do so often.
Quote things he said if possible, but Einstein has been dead for ages now and so it's permissible to bring him up to date.
Change the odd word here and there to make it clear that Einstein would have supported your argument if only he knew what you know.
Act as if any arbitrary Einstein quote supports your position.

:D

[immoderate]

272. BMUS, you caught me.

You know I was trying to help.

It ain't easy when someone knows all about logic.

As always, it's good to see you. :hug:

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

273. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Curse you, God, for not giving atheists self control and discipline!

[immoderate]

231. Dupe -- delete please!

thanks.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

269. "Science books and schools need to stop the deception."

That is one of the most idiotic and disturbingly paranoid statements I have ever read on DU.

Bravo.

:applause:

[tomcalab]

298. It Happens

I, for one, do not believe everything I read. I usually try to eek out three sources of information.

A quick search for "error in school books" will bring up some.

Here is one I found at: http://www.dailytexanonline.com

------------------------------------------

Study finds errors in science books
The University Wire
Posted: 1/31/01

DURHAM, N.C. -- Rife with inaccuracies, poor readability and egregious errors, middle school science textbooks may be inhibiting students' learning and are due for vast improvement, according to a recent study out of North Carolina State University.

John Hubisz, a visiting professor of physics at NCSU, examined in detail 12 popular middle school physical science texts that reach about 80 percent of American middle school students. The books ranged from the latest editions to those that are 10 years old.

Some of the more humorous errors found by the study include a photograph of singer Linda Ronstadt described as a silicon crystal in the 1997 edition of Exploring Physical Science, published by Prentice-Hall.

"It's not so much the errors as it is the sheer number," Hubisz said. "Students are not able to see any kind of continuity .... The thing is that don't teach science."

At the Durham School of the Arts, a public magnet school, the eighth graders currently use a high school text, but until last year, they used a Prentice-Hall book criticized in the study. Eighth-grade science teacher Alex Hill remembers errors in the chemistry section, especially in explanations of the gas laws.

"The overall difficulty with science textbooks is to be appealing enough, simple enough, but retain seriousness of content," Hill said. "That is difficult criteria for creating a book."

The report also criticizes the textbooks' poor readability, which it said results from an excess of writers, overseers and editors.

"You can't write a book like that," said Hubisz, adding that multiple authors create a glut of information. "Kids have no way of determining what is important information and what is not."

Additionally, when reviewers contacted some of the people listed as authors of the textbooks, almost none of them would claim to be an "author" and some had no idea they were listed as such. And when contacted by reviewers, publishers said corrections had been made. But when the corrected texts were examined by the reviewers, in many cases more errors were found. Additionally, many teachers do not have access to these latest corrected editions.

The eight reviewers are members of the American Association of Physics Teachers, with backgrounds in physics and teaching experience ranging from middle to graduate school.

By Ruth Carlitz, Duke University
---------------------------------------------------

[Spearman87]

332. Possibly infinite--A Tangent about science, not religion

I mentioned this idea in a post elsewhere

But I just happened across this link

http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~sjg/class/1010/wc/geom/donutuniverse.html

……with an interesting discussion on various possible geometries for the universe, including possibly being finite in one dimension and infinite in others. I made no attempt at an exhaustive search, so there may be newer and better information

<<"a finite universe would create big problems for the reigning theory of the Big Bang, inflation theory. It posits that the universe underwent a burst of hyperexpansion in its earliest moments. Among other things, it implies that the observable universe today, a bubble 28 billion light-years in diameter, is only a speck on the surface of a vastly greater realm trillions upon trillions of light-years across.

"There's no natural way yet proposed to get the inflation to stop and give a space that's big enough to house all the galaxies but small enough to see within the observable horizon," said Dr. Janna Levin, a Cambridge University cosmologist who wrote about finite universes in her 1992 book, "How the Universe Got Its Spots, Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space."

Dr. Spergel added, "If the universe were finite, then this would rule out inflation and require something new.">>

As I mentioned elsewhere, at least one team of scientist that happened to be represented on NPR leans toward this being an infinite universe, not just the 13.7 billion light years that is visible in any direction we look. I’m posting this out of scientific interest, not for the religious debate taking place. It’s not relevant to that debate for me personally, but the science of cosmology is infinitely facincating, even if the universe may not be!

[Spearman87]

330. Adamant Atheism is a religion, or at least a Cult :-)

There’s even less “proof” that there is definitely no God than that there is one: I know of no proofs for a null hypothesis. But if you pray enough times or follow enough seemingly fatal accidents, diseases, etc there are going to be some “miracles” that occur, be they real, or statistical accidents, or whatever. So they may get mad at being called religious, but they follow something even more devoid of common sense than the Christians (among others) they themselves would poke fun at. Agnosticism is another story and a lot more logical, given the limitations of human understanding. But the truly militant atheists I’ve observed (not here, this is my first time glancing at this forum) have a pathological belief that there is no higher power—period—they know this somehow, being imbued apparently with greater cosmic insights than the rest of us. But maybe ‘atheist’ has a different meaning on this forum than what it means to those people. I’m not sure, I was just responding to this:


<<”BTW, the fastest way to get flamed around here is to call atheism a religion. That's one of the few things that most of the resident atheists are most adamant about. It's like calling barefoot a type of shoe. Atheism, to most of us, simply means without god. Theists, who take the existence of god for granted think of atheists as those who refuse to recognize the existence of god. that's not how atheists see it. Just like theirs no special category for people who don't believe in astrology or Santa Claus, atheism is not a belief. Atheism also lacks the features usually associated with religion, a deity, dogmas, rituals, clergy, an ideological purpose, etc.”>>

Adamantly believing there’s no Santa is one thing. Adamant claiming that it is humanly possible to have a complete understanding of how the cosmos came into being, and the possible entity(ies) behind it is self-delusion. We’re too unintelligent of a species.

On a practical level, I always liked Aquina’s (?) argument that we can envision a nothingness or nonexistence, but that’s not what we have. Apparently something so big it is impossible for us to grasp either always existed or came into existence out of nothingness (calling the cause of this universe--the higher reality behind it--“eternal” seems fine by me, since, according to physics, time itself is a property of our universe and came into being with it). That does’t mean it’s the Christian God that caused the big bang (nor does it preclude it, if you’re not some kind of biblical literalist), but it does suggest to me that it’s at least possible that something the human mind might call a “god” does exist.


<<”A philosopher called St. Anselm proposed the "teleological" argument based on the notion of cause and effect. He said everything has a cause, and so there must have been a first cause, and this is what we call god. A careful examination of his logic will show that this doesn't prove or explain anything, but it was good enough to get him a sainthood.”>>

It’s a hollow argument, true. But I recall perhaps the most prominent theoretical physicist of the late 80s/early 90s—Stephen Hawking—just as proudly touting the Anthropomorphic Principle to explain why the universe we live in seems to be finely tuned to allow human life: Because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. And the corrolary: There must be multiple or infinite universes, surely, so it’s no surprise that there happens to be one very well suited for us. Those statements are equally lacking in substantive proofs or explanations, but enough to help him get a Nobel Prize.



<<”As far as god goes he is, with all his great powers, sufficient to have brought this all about, but he is not necessary. There's really nothing for him to do.”>>

Not today, and possibly not since the big bang (though we have not as yet solved all the secrets to how life evolved here totally without help, if it did). Hypothetically though, we can argue that he was the catalyst that set this particular universe in motion, and wonder why he did it. Those type questions are not answerable IMO, but that is something for him to have done. Another St. Anselm-like line of reasoning by the reknowned physicists is to claim that b/c we know that subatomic particles can appear out of nothingness in a vacuum, a similar paricle could have been the genesis of our own universe, so no need for a catalyst or a god. Yet there is zero scientific evidence to suggest that spontaneous particle materialization can result in the type of macro-scale universe we see around us. At any rate, they don’t know why things appear out of nothing, be it subatomic particles or proto-universes. So they say, it’s “normal” and does not require a cause. They really know nothing of the sort, but it’s a nice bandaid to paste over areas where it’s uncomfortable to simply say “we don’t know and we never will”.


<<”I'm a bit surprised that the atheists you know think the universe is infinite. It's not. It all started with one event, and has expanded from that for some 15 billion years.”>>

The most recent cosmological discussion I heard on the subject—on one of those NPR “Science Friday” shows—they said they do suspect the universe is probably infinite. The fact that it's existed 13.7 billion years (that’s the latest most accurate estimate, not 15) limits how much of it we can currently see, since only light from that far away from us has had time to reach us yet. But light speed does not limit how fast the universe expanded. It’s believed there was a period of “hyperexpansion” after the big bang, equivalent to expanding faster than light, and that the universe probably stretches far beyond what we can see. Also recall that just as there was no such thing as “Time” before the universe (time is a peculiar quality of the spacetime we live in that came into existence with the big bang) and no such thing as “before” the big bang—that’s a meaningless phrase in human terms—so too space, as the human mind conceives of it, began with the big bang. The universe did not expand into some preexisting space. Space itself expanded outward after coming into existence. In human spacial terms, there is no “outside” of the universe.


<<”According to current cosmological view if you set out in a direction and traveled in a straight line for long enough, you would return to your starting point.”>>

I think this view has been superceded by other possibilities. We used to think of a “spherical” universe, in higher dimensional modeling, but saddle-shaped and others have also been posited.



<<”the fastest way to get flamed around here is to call atheism a religion”>>

Stopwatch activated! :)


PS—This was all in good fun. I love an intriguing debate, and yours was the most evenly tempered and intelligently thought-out of the responses I happened to click on. But I could just as easily have responded in the spaghetti monster thread and made jokes about organized religion. I’m of 2 minds on these matters. My left brain views it all rather logically and abstractly, believes that the only kind of “god” possible is one completely beyond human understanding, a deist-type entity who set the universe in motion for purposes we can never fathom, and who is absent from and probably never was a part of human experience. And of course no afterlife. The Right brain part of me is more open to spiritual experiences and to a God who intervenes in everyday life on occasion. There’s no way to know as far as I’m concerned. I do believe there’s a very good chance the universe has a purpose, and is the result of purposeful goings on at higher levels than humans can comprehend (in other words we’re not just living in the midst of some gigantic, random quantum accident, as some physicists posit). Too bad we’ll never know and are in fact incapable of understanding, even if something wanted to communicate to us the full picture.

[Spearman87]

331. One comment BTW on “Vacuum Genesis”

The theory that just as particles can appear spontaneously in a vacuum, so the universe could have come into existence from a single subatomic paricle. One glaring hole that they never seem to address is that even in a vacuum, the basic fabric of spacetime—whatever that is….the stuff that a black hole tears a rip into—is still there at the quantum level. The mysterious “Dark energy” is at work, and perhaps creating gravitational or antigravitional pressure on the fabric that has some catalyzing effect in the creation of these particles. But before this universe, there was no spacetime as we know it, so the whole mechanism has no analogous foundation. It’s just more shades of the Anthropomorphic Principle, and physicists running out of ideas yet still maintaining a pretense that they can come up the answer.

There is way too much in the history of science of a pattern of even the top scientists of the day seeing one model and simply extrapolating it to all situations. We see a solar system around us with gas giants far from the sun, and that automatically becomes “standard”. Scientists proclaim to be shocked when we begin detecting close-orbitting Jupiter worlds. We see typical slow evolution, and are later surprised to find evidence that there might also be “punctuated equilibrium”……lots of examples of this, but I’m drifting off into material better suited to the science board. We must have separation of church and Lab!

[Spearman87]

333. Substitute "Anthropic Principle" for anthropomorphic (NM)* *

dfdfdfdfd

[Random_Australian]

171. It's about choice of algorithm.

Just one of many things.

Simple question, very simple really.

Evolution requires an individual different from the population for some reason, usually referred to as a "mutation".

I ask how often you think these mutations occur in a population.

Just learning about you. :)

[tomcalab]

195. How'd I do?

I would think that measuring something like that would be very difficult since DNA is involved. Obviously we are not evolving at an alarming rate. I know that people are getting taller, but how one could measure the gene for height is beyond my current knowledge.

In general I would guess that mutations are in all likelihood small in nature and occur over rather long periods of time. However, I do think that our genetic makeup can change suddenly due to mass exposure to powerful stimuli. ie radiation etc...

That given, I would say that from what I hear, we have evolved over millions of years from our simian counterparts. I would guess that from the DNA found of our ancient counterparts we could overlay our current DNA, note the differences, date the DNA using carbon testing and interpolate information about how many changes have occurred in "X" amount of years.

There are some sources of natural error of measurements that would need to be considered before any inferences of frequency could be know with any meaningful certainty. One would have to look at the sample population and determine a 95% probability of error in order for the estimates to be properly understood.

And then there is always human errors and blunders. What if the DNA we are interpolating from is actually not related to current humans? Also, if a mutation can occur then what is stopping it from mutating back. Without a large data population any type of "trend" could be hard to isolate. Again, with what kind of certainty.

I have seen scientists come out with numbers, but when you ask for their 95% confidence region you soon learn that their conclusions can be very precise, but not accurate.

I have a lot of experience with the theory of error in measurements, least squares adjustments, and statistical analysis.

So to answer your question.....I don't know. But if I listen to the Bible, then Adam and Eve was created about 5700 years ago. So if God was smart, and he is, he would put the mutation frequency well outside the time of creation. So....I would say that the probability of a large evolutionary change in humans happening within 5700 years is zero. In fact I would say that even small permanente genetic changes could not occur within 5700 years.

The Bible says that for "certainty" one should use the number 3. So, I'll go out on a limb here and say that even the smallest permanent change in the human DNA would take no less than 17,100 years (triple 5700 years).

When it comes to linking humans DNA with ancient ape DNA...

Did God have two creations? With different creatures? The Bible does have two accounts of creation, but I have not studied Genesis enough to speak with any certainty. But maybe God in his genus is telling us to not interpolate across the two accounts of creation recorded in the Bible.

I really don't know.

How'd I do?

[Random_Australian]

221. Hmmmm, sort of well, but you've not got it quite down pat.

Warning: In this post I will put it to you that there has been genetic change over the last 17,100 years, even though it is small.

And yes, we don't know enough about genes to know this works exactly this way. We know enough to know it is pretty close. The unsupported assumption is that the one about height-to-gene correlation.

Here is something that I'm quite sure you can move from the version simple enough to be posted to the real deal... or something close to.

Basically, this is a very simple example in which half the population dies, and each pair of parents has four kids. In this example the height will be used to modify something's chance of survival.

Take a population without any systematic effect, so height is normally distributed. You will want this on a histogram about now.

Then kill half the population. As in, you remove half the area of the graph. In this example, there is a very strong preference for height, so the probability of something living is proportional to it's height.

Then you change the heights to gene heights. This is easy - is something is genetically genetically 'determined' to have hieght A, then it's actual height would be ~N(A,sigma-squared). However, the exact nature of this relationship has not been worked out. It would appear to be something not far removed from this.

To take this backward a step, something with height A is also going to be normally distributed around genetic A. (I can't remember if the SD would be the same. It is late, I am tired, and like all good scientists I sat down and worked this out myself rather than bieng taught it).

Then you do this for each choice of height and notice that the mean height is no longer what it was before... that is, the mean genes of the animal has changed.

Then having the parent couples have four kids each restocks the population.

Note you have to go from genes to height yet again, through another normal distribution, so the effect is not large. Not large at all.

But it is tiny and it is always there.

And that's that!

You can, of course, repeat this as many times as you desire. And yes, you would have noticed flaws in the model already. If any of them contradict the change in genes, tell me about it. If not, just solve it by making math more complex. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. I am an ape

we all are. We don't descend from the other current ape species, but that common ancestor was also an ape.

[tomcalab]

117. Who told you this....

Did someone tell you were an ape, or did you figure this out on your own?

I am not against the concept of evolution. A creator would want to design that into his creation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. It's the commonly accepted biological classification

eg

Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hominidae.html

No, I'm not a biologist or palaeotologist, so I haven't found this out on my own, or done research towards it. But the physical similarities among apes, including humans, are obvious, and there's a line of species which develop, through the years, more and more of the modern human body form, such as the upright stance and larger skull, from one that is more chimp-like. Scientists re-examine their assumptions frequently, as new evidence becomes available (as above), and so if there isn't an obvious dispute in what scientists say, you can be pretty sure that the consensus view is worth listening to.

[tomcalab]

152. Fascinating !

I find all of the information you shared fascinating. Thank you so much for taking the time to share it with me. i will take the time to go to the link you supplied.

But this thread is more about the existence of God than about evolution. I have no problem accepting evolution. In fact in God's genius I would think he would design it right in. Especially considering how we humans have a tendency to mess up his creation.

This thread will never produce a consensus, even among people of common knowledge. I just love all of the great input everyone here has shared.

A lot of people hear push the "who created the creator" issue, which when I answer it for them they simply can not fathom the concept of anything existing outside of our physical world and sensual perceptions. I can, and so can billions of other people. Go figure...there must be something to this spirit thing.

For me the idea of something from nothing simply does not cut it. Or, like my parents used to say when I asked questions...we are here simply "because" we are. Okay...but how does that explain the creation of atoms? I guess for some, they don't need an answer for that question in order to produce all their other theories which happen to hang on the answer to that question. They tell me atoms are here because they have always been here. Well go figure...that's exactly what the Bible says about God.

So, show me how to create atoms from a vacuum, and then maybe I'll quit logically deducing that their had to be a creator. ah duh!


Anyway, thanks for listening, and thanks for your input.

Cheers

[beam me up scottie]

266. " In fact in God's genius I would think he would design it right in."

Really?

Is that why you keep yucking it up whenever you mention our common ancestors?

You sound like a closet creationist who thinks that claiming he believes in Intelligent Design gives him credibility among evolutionists.

A lot of people hear push the "who created the creator" issue, which when I answer it for them they simply can not fathom the concept of anything existing outside of our physical world and sensual perceptions. I can, and so can billions of other people. Go figure...there must be something to this spirit thing.

First, the only reason people "push" the "who created the creator question" is because people like you keep insisting that scientific theories are intellectually inferior to the ever-so-logical conclusions reached by the Kent Hovinds and Ken Hams of the world.

And second, you have no idea what anyone else who posted in this thread can or can't comprehend.

How could you? You've done nothing but create one straw man after another while deliberately misrepresenting the posts of every other DUer in this thread.


I don't know what's worse, the willful ignorance of logic and science or the intellectual dishonesty of someone who has determined that the people who responded to his request to be challenged are too stupid to understand his conclusions since they "simply can not fathom the concept of anything existing outside of our physical world and sensual perceptions".

[tomcalab]

299. Representative?

I in no way purposely tried to offend anyone, misled anyone, or misrepresent my beliefs.

I came here to discuss and broaden my horizons. I am very grateful to all at DU who have contributed to this thread. I want to hear from everyone, so please do not become too discouraged. Your input is always enlightening and appreciated.

Peace be with you.

[Random_Australian]

81. Ok, here I am!

A fair bit of my stuff has been covered already. Oh well.

Anyway, I'll point out again that there is this comment:

"I agree that some people look and act like they evolved from apes"

Not only do you use "humans are best, animals are inferior" but more than that you seem to think (as in, you are 'agreeing with me') that I actually share these views.

No thanks. "some people" means you want to form groups as well, but more than that, why even bother to insult people?

But, this time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you thought (for goodness knows what reason) that we thought that, and were just trying to make some common ground.

Ok, now we have that out of the way, let's move on:


"but the complexity of the universe that supports the earth"

Odd you should mention that, because from where I am standing, it does not look that complex. What bits, exactly, were the comples bits? Perhaps it was the governence of everything from a few numbers?


"lack of evidence of life other than on earth lends itself (break)"

??????????

And... what experiment, exactly, was the one were we got to see some kind of planet that was not freakish in terms of it's mass and orbit?

" (end break)to logically reason that life requires the exact conditions found here on earth"

Logically, the definition of life says exactly the opposite. And your initial premise was flawed. (Discussed in break)

"Intellegent design seems much more logical than organized chaos"

What an odd name for it... organised chaos.....

but anyway, hypnotic names aside, why exactly is that? We already know how we can obtain from interactions of information practically any system we want, why not this one?

What is so "designed" about it anyway? Like our appendix? Or our blind spot? What about Huntington's disease? (Actually genetic code, not a normal disease) Was that designed?

Since when is something that is not that well suited for the environment it was invariably going to be in "designed"? (humans)

"And then there is that question about who or what created what the universe is made of."

You presuppose two unsupported things:

1) There was creation.

2) Creation requires cause.

Why are these flawed? Because the former supposes there was time before the big bang, the latter is because we observe things that are created without cause all the time!

"If you saw a building, wouldn't you know there was an architect and builder?"

Yup, because there is no pathway. It is not energetically or entropically favourable, unlike evolution.

[tomcalab]

119. Thank you

Thank you for all of your great responses.

I've pasted your response below and have inserted my responses.


A fair bit of my stuff has been covered already. Oh well.

Anyway, I'll point out again that there is this comment:

"I agree that some people look and act like they evolved from apes"

Not only do you use "humans are best, animals are inferior" but more than that you seem to think (as in, you are 'agreeing with me') that I actually share these views.

Response: No I didn't and no I'm not

No thanks. "some people" means you want to form groups as well, but more than that, why even bother to insult people?

Response: I am a white male with no hair what so ever on my legs, and very very little on my chest and other places. There are other traits that one can see more predominately in other persons than me. But if you want to convince others that humans were once covered with body hair...don't use me as an example! I was actually agreeing that there are physical similarities between apes and man, and that humans do share many behavioral traits found in apes. I did not group anyone, nor did I exclude myself. You read a little too much into it! Why? It appears that my use of the word "they" is the cause of your comments.

But, this time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you thought (for goodness knows what reason) that we thought that, and were just trying to make some common ground.


Ok, now we have that out of the way, let's move on:

"but the complexity of the universe that supports the earth"

Odd you should mention that, because from where I am standing, it does not look that complex. What bits, exactly, were the comples bits? Perhaps it was the governence of everything from a few numbers?

Response: I don't understand your response.


"lack of evidence of life other than on earth lends itself (break)"

??????????

And... what experiment, exactly, was the one were we got to see some kind of planet that was not freakish in terms of it's mass and orbit?

Response: I think we agree on this point. What experiment shows life on another planet?


" (end break)to logically reason that life requires the exact conditions found here on earth"

Logically, the definition of life says exactly the opposite. And your initial premise was flawed. (Discussed in break)

Response: If I remember right human life requires air, and ... What type of life on earth has evolved to our level that does not need air?

"Intelligent design seems much more logical than organized chaos"

What an odd name for it... organised chaos.....

Response: I didn't define it....mathematitions did....sorry.


but anyway, hypnotic names aside, why exactly is that? We already know how we can obtain from interactions of information practically any system we want, why not this one?

Response: What is the probability that if I explode a can of paint in front of a canvas, that the splatters will land on the canvas in the way that we want them to? When you look at a painting, you know that there was a painter. The organized "bang" theory seems less logical than intelligent design.

What is so "designed" about it anyway? Like our appendix? Or our blind spot? What about Huntington's disease? (Actually genetic code, not a normal disease) Was that designed?

Response: Did lumber evolve from trees? I do believe that there are reasons for everything here on earth, and I don't believe that God is responsible for all of them.


Since when is something that is not that well suited for the environment it was invariably going to be in "designed"? (humans)

Response: I don't understand your response...sorry

"And then there is that question about who or what created what the universe is made of."

You presuppose two unsupported things:

1) There was creation.

2) Creation requires cause.

Why are these flawed? Because the former supposes there was time before the big bang, the latter is because we observe things that are created without cause all the time!

Where did atoms come from?

"If you saw a building, wouldn't you know there was an architect and builder?"

Yup, because there is no pathway. It is not energetically or entropically favourable, unlike evolution.

Response: Exactly, and I'm saying that intelligent design, includes evolution. Evolution was necessary for the creator to allow his creation to adapt. I don't necessarily have a problem with us evolving from apes. But, I question it.

[immoderate]

130. Evolution does not require a designer anymore than...

water needs a map to find which way is downhill.

--IMM

[Random_Australian]

168. Ok, here we go!

(on dislike of 'they act like apes' comment) "It appears that my use of the word "they" is the cause of your comments"

Yes, it is. Looks a lot like your intent is to put people into groups if you are not careful.

So I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no harm.

Anyway, moving on:

"Response: I don't understand your response"

Allow me to perhaps illuminate my position.

You spoke of the how complex the universe has to be in order to support life. I pointed out that the universe is not actually all that complex - ie. just a few numbers and rules make it all.

"Response: I think we agree on this point. What experiment shows life on another planet?"

I'll do something I don't often do and answer a question with a question:

What experiment has looked at the conditions, (ie. whether or not there is life), on any planet outside the solar system?


"Response: What is the probability that if I explode a can of paint in front of a canvas, that the splatters will land on the canvas in the way that we want them to?"

Who cares? If you want an analagy to life, all you need to do is shorten that to "What is the probability that if I explode a can of paint in front of a canvas, that the splatters will land on the canvas?"

"When you look at a painting, you know that there was a painter."

Because there is not pathway. The end.



"are reasons for everything here on earth, and I don't believe that God is responsible for all of them."

Interesting. So, who, of not the Designer, is responsible for the properties that the Design has?


"Response: I don't understand your response...sorry"

For illumination, I will expand what I said to 'humans pretty much always were going to protect themselves from the wolves and form societies like we have now. Why make humans such that our tastes, for instance, are so out-of-line with what is good for us in a world where people don't starve?'

"Where did atoms come from?"

The big bang... excuse me if I am wrong, but I put forward two premises that are incorrect in saying things need causal creation, and your question did nothing against either (as far as I can see).

"Response: Exactly, and I'm saying that intelligent design, includes evolution. Evolution was necessary for the creator to allow his creation to adapt. I don't necessarily have a problem with us evolving from apes. But, I question it."

I know. And I question ID and answer the questions about evolution.

[tomcalab]

185. Excellent Exchange....thanks

I pasted your response below and insert by comments.

You spoke of the how complex the universe has to be in order to support life. I pointed out that the universe is not actually all that complex - ie. just a few numbers and rules make it all.

Response: I disagree. If "life" were and algorithm then can man create life from scratch. Are you aware of any scientists that have created "life" from particles? If so then maybe "life" is not all that complex and I will reconsider my opinion.
--------------

What experiment has looked at the conditions, (ie. whether or not there is life), on any planet outside the solar system?

Response: I remember something about listening to noises coming from space and using algorithms to filter the noise in order to find patterns which may or may not be communications from another planet? I have not heard anything on the nightly news yet.
--------------

"Response: What is the probability that if I explode a can of paint in front of a canvas, that the splatters will land on the canvas in the way that we want them to?"

Who cares? If you want an analogy to life, all you need to do is shorten that to "What is the probability that if I explode a can of paint in front of a canvas, that the splatters will land on the canvas?"

Response: I do not understand you response.
-------------

"When you look at a painting, you know that there was a painter."

Because there is not pathway. The end.

Response: I do not understand your response.
----------------
are reasons for everything here on earth, and I don't believe that God is responsible for all of them."

Interesting. So, who, of not the Designer, is responsible for the properties that the Design has?

Response: I believe in the concept of evolution, and I believe that man can do things here on earth that will set other things in motion. How the things we set in motion end up, is ultimately Gods design. That's why science is so important. I am pro-science. I worked for the Forest Service for 7 years and I know about balance of nature. Man has really screwed up our forests. If left alone they are quite capable of taking care of themselves...introduce man....suffer consequences. (or pathways?)

Either way the Bible makes it quite clear that we are the caretakers of God's creation. In other words...Man was not made for the earth...the earth was made for man. You can find the owners manual in the Bible. Health and food rules and even a rules for soil management.

Lev 25:3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
Lev 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

--------------

"Response: I don't understand your response...sorry"

For illumination, I will expand what I said to 'humans pretty much always were going to protect themselves from the wolves and form societies like we have now. Why make humans such that our tastes, for instance, are so out-of-line with what is good for us in a world where people don't starve?'

Response: still not sure of what you're asking...but I think the answer I just gave about an owners manual might address your concern. Otherwise...starvation should be eliminated. One of God's rules that man has not followed enough is gleaning. Gleaning could save a lot of lives. Also God allows hungry people to go into the fields a eat. They can not gather, or leave the field with any food, but if they are hungry... farmers should allow them to eat. Also 10% of the farmers harvest went to the priests who distributed the food to orphans and widows. God invented the Second Harvest food bank.

Deu 26:12 When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce the third year, which is the year of tithing, and have given it to the Levite, the stranger and the sojourner, the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your towns and be filled

and.....

Deu 23:24 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
Deu 23:25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

and gleaning

Deu 24:19 When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

We should have no excuse for starving people.

----------------

"Where did atoms come from?"

The big bang... excuse me if I am wrong, but I put forward two premises that are incorrect in saying things need causal creation, and your question did nothing against either (as far as I can see).

Response: Okay..In the beginning God said "bang".

--------------------

"Response: Exactly, and I'm saying that intelligent design, includes evolution. Evolution was necessary for the creator to allow his creation to adapt. I don't necessarily have a problem with us evolving from apes. But, I question it."

I know. And I question ID and answer the questions about evolution.

Response: We need science. We are the caretakers of the earth. Whether or not you believe in God or not. But some people can not do the right thing when they only have to answer to man. If they are the bully on the block they will simply use and abuse people and the earth because they know that after death there is nothing. They ignore their conscience and only seek short term satisfaction at the cost of.....who cares....anything or anyone.

On a lot of issues, believers and progressives are in agreement. God's laws are not unethical, but people break them. For a lot of reasons that we can discuss rationally. I love this board because the intelligence level is so high...I am very impressed with the people here and enjoy you all.

Cheers....

[cyborg_jim]

188. Eh?

I disagree. If "life" were and algorithm then can man create life from scratch. Are you aware of any scientists that have created "life" from particles? If so then maybe "life" is not all that complex and I will reconsider my opinion.

I see. So because constructing life is not yet possible from its base constituents then it must require a divine hand in its creation (for no particular scientific reason mind, just another fallicious argument).

And yet you are currently using technology beyond the imagination of anyone at the time of your birth. Hello? Are you even aware of this?

What is the probability that if I explode a can of paint in front of a canvas, that the splatters will land on the canvas in the way that we want them to?

Highly unlikely - but then again you use an analogy that fails to understand the mechanics involved - more fallacy.

Health and food rules and even a rules for soil management.

Heh, I love Leviticus. It's full of some pretty vile stuff. But I love how you think the Israelite take on agriculture had to come from their god. I guess every other civilization was just clever enough to figure it out for themsevles eh?

Exactly, and I'm saying that intelligent design, includes evolution. Evolution was necessary for the creator to allow his creation to adapt.

How is it necessary for an omnipotent creator? Nonsense - your god could have created existence in a way that such things would be unnecessary. Either way that's some big-ass grasping at straws.

I don't necessarily have a problem with us evolving from apes. But, I question it.

Ugh. No, we are apes, we did not evolve from them. How many times are people going to make this incorrect assertion?

And do you question it on any scientific grounds?

Oh and no, we are not a 'higher species', evolution is not a goal directed activity - unless you watch Star Trek.

God's laws are not unethical, but people break them.

I see. You regularly get together in your community to stone people to death do you? Please tell me Jesus fulfilled the law, or he only fulfilled a certain catergory of law so that the above OT references to agricultural law remain valid whilst stoning homos and women who don't scream during rape aren't (and all those inconvenient laws about various bodily emissions and food). Am I passionate now? No, now I'm pissed off.

Yahweh is a fucking egomaniacal monster and I hate the way Christians constantly wriggle themselves out of noticing those clearly noted characteristics. At least fundies are more honest when they call for stoning gays to death - I'll give them that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

189. To answer one point, yes, life has been constructed from particles

Scientists use DNA to make virus

Thursday, 13 November, 2003

US scientists have produced a wholly artificial virus using a method they claim could lead to new lifeforms.
...
The researchers assembled the phiX genome from oligonucleotides - small pieces of single-stranded DNA - and then combined these into the double stands of the complete genome using their new polymerase cycle assembly (PCA) method.

The whole process of building the synthetic phiX took just 14 days.

The artificial bacteriophage behaves just like the "natural" one. It has the ability to infect and kill bacterial cells and is indistinguishable from its counterpart.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3268259.stm

[tomcalab]

202. Not Fom Scratch

They did not create life from combining atoms.

[Finder]

227. Scientists have made atoms in the lab...

and have created life forms(virus for example)from proteins(molecular)etc...

Of course that does not disprove anything but it does remove a common argument used by some.

[ironbark]

245. Nope, sorry, not yet.

"Scientists have made atoms in the lab...
and have created life forms(virus for example)from proteins(molecular)etc..."

If you have a link to a reputable site confirming science to have "created life forms" I would like to see it.

To the best of my knowledge and Net surf science is yet to create life from non living components.
If they had it would be fairly big news.
As far back as the 1930’s and 40’s it was being predicted “Not long now”.
By the 1950’s all the ingredients had been identified and placed in the labs ‘Primordial Soup’….with the confident expectation that science would do deliberately in decades what nature took millennia to do by accident.

By the 80’s most folk had stopped holding their breath.

Even should science come close to creating life there is going to be a bunfight (within science itself) about how ‘life’ is defined and if a 'virus' would qualify.-

“However, not every definition of life considers all of these properties to be essential. For example, the capacity for descent with modification is often taken as the only essential property of life. This definition notably includes viruses, which do not qualify under narrower definitions as they are acellular and do not metabolise. Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-based life and other alternative biology.”Wikpedia

If science had actually created life atheists would be shouting loudly about it (personally I don’t think the ‘theological’ implications are that great) …but todate atheist websites report-

“More than 100 laboratories processes involved in the creation of life, and scientists say for the first time that they have just about all the pieces they need to begin making inanimate chemicals come alive.”
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/075868.htm


Not holding my breath ;-)

[Finder]

253. The work of Sydney Fox for example...

He even had an audience with the Pope. Why this man did not receive a Nobel prize is beyond comprehension.
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

And of course the Miller-Urey experiments

http://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf

The Miller-Urey experiment showed how the building blocks of life can be created out of simple gasses and an electric charge...the something out of nothing argument. Many of these building blocks were later found in meteorites as well which is fascinating and important.IMO

[Random_Australian]

219. Hardy ha ha. Here I am!

Before I start, I'll say that when I say "pathway" I mean energy and entropy pathway - for instance lowering entropy to make a house has no pathway, but lowering entropy by freezing water does.

"Response: I disagree. If "life" were and algorithm then can man create life from scratch."

I said that the universe was not complex, because just a few numbers rule it all.

You responded that if this was the case, man ought to be able to make life himself.

I think at this point you can see where you missed my point. :)

"Response: I remember something about listening to noises coming from space and using algorithms to filter the noise in order to find patterns which may or may not be communications from another planet? I have not heard anything on the nightly news yet."

Exactly - it SETI looked among the noise of the entire universe noise. It never managed to fit something. Amazing. Please note that they were only looking at extremely powerful signals, and that they never even had the computer power to compute a fraction of the incoming information.

And what's more, something at least very similar to life *appears* to have come from mars. However, my original point remains - we have no data on anything planet sized anywhere in the entire universe except for the solar system.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_444160.htm

That's the mars thing. :)

"Response: I do not understand you response"

Painting has no pathway, because it can only be a few things. Life can be a simply enourmous amount of things, and thus resembles random splotches on a canvas more than it does a painting.

"Response: I do not understand your response"

See top.

"the earth was made for man"

I disagree - in my opinion,the earth was made FOR nothing - after all, we don't see a billiard ball fly at another to knock it into the pocket, we see it move because it was hit with a cue.

"still not sure of what you're asking...(...) Otherwise...starvation should be eliminated."

You're right about one thing - starvation should be eliminated.

But taking the example of the rich western societies, we pretty much ended starvation. We were always going to, it is part of what society is.

The thing is, if we were designed, then why 'design' us to live in the wild, rather than in the cities we were always going to make?

(Technically, we never *had* to make cities but it is pretty likely)

"Response: Okay..In the beginning God said "bang"."

What need is there for it to be done by God? Why not nature? (With specific reference to the two assumptions I pointed out in my reply to your reply to my reply. ;) )

"But some people can not do the right thing when they only have to answer to man"

Alright, at exactly what point did I say we ought to get rid of religion? I actually encourage some people to be religious - it's a great short-cut.

[tomcalab]

250. Closing Thoughts

Thank you for your response.

I am going to not directly reply to the content of this response. I do want to thank you for all of your time and energy. You have been a major contributor, and I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. I'm going to try and wind up my part on this subject.

I'm sure, as with other threads in the past that dealt with this subject, that the consensus was the same....there was none. Still, I hope that you have benefited from our exchange. I know I have.

I would like to leave you with something to add to your wealth of knowledge:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God."

-----Albert Einstein

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.

In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."

-----Albert Einstein

I wish you success in all your ventures....peace be with you.

[immoderate]

258. Ironic that you leave us with the thoughts of Einstein, an atheist.

And Einstein's words, as usual, taken out of context.

My original reason for returning to this thread was the realization that you had tried to blame Darwin for exacerbating the position of women and the white power structure during the Victorian era. You never mentioned the 1700 years of Christianity in Europe that led to that situation.

It is frustrating to see how little you got from this exchange.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

267. Ironic, but predictable. Believers always try to baptize dead geniuses.

Not all believers, of course, just the ones who are threatened by science.

I guess we can't really blame the creationists, they have no geniuses of their own, after all.

Why wouldn't they resort to baptism by proxy?

It's not like the fact that it's immoral ever stopped them from doing it in the past.

[immoderate]

274. You think he gave up?

That was one of the more impenetrable intellects I've seen.

To paraphrase Louie, the taxi dispatcher, as played by Danny DeVito, "Sometimes I hate myself ... and then a guy like that comes along and makes it all worth it."

I wonder if he'll be back...:shrug:

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

275. ROFLMAO!

I forgot that line! Taxi was priceless, every episode more wonderful than the last.

Oh I'm sure you didn't even make a dent. People like that don't come here to discuss, they come here to score points for preaching to the unblessed masses. Maybe if they do this ten times it's the equivalent of actually converting one of us. I think they must have some kind of punch card, you know, like we used to get at Subway?

[immoderate]

276. Sad that he doesn't appreciate the education.

He was "dancing with the stars" and I don't think he'll know it. This information was trans-cranial for him.

My favorite part was when he blamed Darwin for misogyny, white supremacy, and European Imperialism.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

277. Definitely Tom Tomorrow material.

It was like he was reading from one of Dr. Dino's textbooks. Maybe he was one of the first graduates from the Discovery Institute?
Hey, if Bob Jones can give out diplomas...



on edit: "Science books and schools need to stop the deception." ??? :wtf:

[Random_Australian]

281. You see, religion is not to blame for religious wars because people

would have found another reason to hate each other.

Did I mention Darwin was completely wrong because people used what he was saying as an excuse to be bastids & barbarians and bavarians? (Bavarians because they are tasty :9)

And did I mention that order simply CAN'T occur spontaneously.

Like when I put water in the freezer. It remains liquid so as not to increase it's order spontaneously, silly! Simply sits still.

(I know, I posted this in Athe & Aggy already, but it gave me an excuse for some adorable alliteration alternating across the post)

[immoderate]

282. Bavarians are flaky and yummy. Or is that Napoleons?

Well at least I learned something from your posts in this thread. You made me think of my high school inspection lab, where we measured machine parts to see if they were within tolerances.

When I said dancing with the stars, I certainly was counting you among them, RA.

--IMM

[Random_Australian]

283. Thankyou - this thread has been nice to me.

I think I made an impression on our visitor, too, by the looks of it. :)

[immoderate]

285. You were very polite.

--IMM

[ironbark]

284. Albert.....On a ballanced education

"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.
One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.
It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.
There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.
If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.
What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that.
If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.
A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger--means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds."

From Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

[immoderate]

287. Einstein says we have an idealistic side.

And he thinks our ideals should be cultivated. He nowhere claims that there is a god. That's what this thread is about.

--IMM

[ironbark]

291. And he thinks our ideals should be cultivated...

....by a ballance between reason and belief.

"He nowhere claims that there is a god"

That's right, he claims that we should consider and value religious principles and 'belief' itself.

Like many people he seems completely disinterested in any pointless debate about prooving or disprooving the existance of God and is clearly more interested in how we should conduct ourselves.

"That's what this thread is about"

Yup....and Alberts comments are apropriate to the 'believe it' aspect of the thread.

[immoderate]

296. If that's what you want to believe...

But this isn't the first time I've seen theists try to twist his words. Easy to pick on a dead guy. :shrug:

--IMM

[ironbark]

301. If *what* is "what I want to believe"?

You neglected to specify...or do you just wish to continue with the vague assertions
that reference *nothing* I or Albert has said?-

"But this isn't the first time I've seen theists try to twist his words"

Wonderful! Then you will be familiar with the requirement of actually providing some
*reference to* or *example of* the alleged "word twisting" lest you appear to be employing
baseless innuendo as a tool to discredit.

"Easy to pick on a dead guy."

Three vague broad brush baseless assertions with no reference to anything actually said all in a row!

I'm impressed.
And you are left with a choice....

Come back with a quote- a specific example of "twisting his words" and "picking on the dead guy"....

Or stand there as a failed Cadre of the Atheist Gatekeepers to Truth with your unloaded, substance free weapon of mass broad brush vague innuendo....and pretend it reflects honesty or scientific method.


;-)

[immoderate]

310. Your last sentence says he is telling people to believe.

This thread was started by someone who is promoting a belief in god. That is quite clear. You are emphasizing the "believe it" in the post, and using the Einstein quote to back you up.

Einstein is saying that a humane society is not built on pure reason. Fine. He is recognizing traditions of social interaction, which he points out exist in what he calls the "Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Then he says:

If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

Religion did not invent these higher order human traits, but it has co-opted them along the way. (Now they even give you rock and roll.) Einstein points out these things, which we would now call memes, as the way to a humane civilization.

Check out the date of the piece, 1941. Now what was going on in 1941 that would provoke such a speech by Einstein? Here's a clue:

There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual.

It is an anti-Nazi speech. It is also anti-nationalist. It is a political speech. He employs the conceit of building a little straw man in the first paragraph.

Einstein was a humanist and a socialist. He never followed any religion. His life's work was to put the entire reality of the universe into a single equation, but he allowed that the reality of life was more than that. That's what he is referring to as beliefs. He is not calling for belief in anything beyond the natural world, as opposed to the OP.

It is disingenuous for anyone to bring in an Einstein quote in a discussion such as this. Especially when it is a fragment, taken out of context of the totality of his writings. Einstein had high ideals and a benevolent view of society, even though it was less evident in his personal relationships. In other writings he clearly states his atheism and his use of the concept of god as a euphemism for his perceived sense of order and coherence in the universe. Einstein was aware of his fame and position as a public person. He would say things such as, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." Freethought Today, November 2004

************************************************************

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.

In a letter to a Baptist minister in 1953 he wrote, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

More to the point was a letter he wrote in 1921 to someone inquiring about how he viewed his immortal soul. He was less concerned about public image then and stated in part:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

There are many sites that summarize Einstein's religious views, or lack thereof. You can find out what he really thought. Here's one:
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Lots of fundy sites quote him out of context to extract a religious point, as they do for the founding fathers, who were deists (the atheists of that time.) As I said above it is disingenuous and constitutes the "twist" I was talking about. Einstein would have been much in tune with say, Martin Luther King, except for the religion part, and that is the nature of the quote you posted. It is quite secular.

As for the "failed Cadre of the Atheist Gatekeepers to Truth with your unloaded, substance free weapon of mass broad brush vague innuendo....and pretend it reflects honesty or scientific method" remark, very poetic. :)

--IMM

[greyl]

311. Your post is divine.

:thumbsup:

[immoderate]

316. Thank you, merci, and gracias.

I admire your work as well.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

325. I concur.

Nicely done. :)

[ironbark]

318. Your last post misreads and misrepresents my pov entirely

So did your prior post…so let’s take quick note of the mess you made and left
without any attempt at tidy up (before moving on to your latest misrepresentative mess)-
……………………………………………………..
"But this isn't the first time I've seen theists try to twist his words"

Wonderful! Then you will be familiar with the requirement of actually providing some *reference to* or *example of* the alleged "word twisting" lest you appear to be employing baseless innuendo as a tool to discredit.
…………………………………………………..

No *reference to* or *example of* my alleged "word twisting" provided thus far
nor any substantiation of “picking on a dead guy”

Your new mess-

“Your last sentence says he is telling people to believe.”

First up, without any quote, cite or indication I am left to guess which bloody “last sentence” you might be referring to. I have to go back two posts (to 291) to find a last sentence that might fit the bill-

“Yup....and Alberts comments are appropriate to the 'believe it' aspect of the thread.”

This *does not* represent or reflect me saying Einstein “is telling people to believe”

There are two aspects to the thread hedder- ‘There is a God’ and ‘Believe it’
I said “Alberts comments are appropriate to the 'believe it' aspect of the thread.”
That is…the entire thrust of the Einstein quote is about the validation of belief.
About the seemingly “unrecognisable conflict between knowledge and belief”
About the understanding that “that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.”

My “last sentence” was not about “telling people to believe”…it was linking the “Believe it’” *aspect* to what Albert said re belief.

Alberts point is that ‘belief’ is valid and essential to human wellbeing and advancement. And further that it is not only ok (in Alberts eyes) to 'believe' but he goes as far as to say of some beliefs - “One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly”.


“Einstein is saying that a humane society is not built on pure reason. Fine. He is recognizing traditions of social interaction, which he points out exist in what he calls the "Judeo-Christian religious tradition."

Yea…Here is a pertinent portion …*note*…neither Albert nor I are
“telling people to believe *anything* ” or telling people what to believe in….both of us are saying that ‘belief’ is as valid and as essential as reason.

“But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.”

Einstein is saying *much more* than “that a humane society is not built on pure reason. Fine”…he is giving great emphasis to the legitimacy of ‘believing’-
“they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities”

Einstein does not have to be a believer in God to recognise the value and legitimacy of these beliefs “that come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities”.

“You are emphasizing the "believe it" in the post, and using the Einstein quote to back you up.”

Bollocks. That was not my “emphasis” at all…you sought a validation of the Einstein quote in the context of the thread…I offered a single throw away line that linked back to the “belief” aspect of the thread and Einstein quote. You took "believe it" to mean 'belive in God' and have run with it, without pause or question, ever since.

The insistent misplaced demand that the substance and objective is to employ Einstein as validation of God or that “he is telling people to believe” is yours and yours alone.
Here you go again-

“ He is not calling for belief in anything beyond the natural world, as opposed to the OP.”

Nor is he calling for such belief to be crapped on from a great height…he does not have to be a believer in God to recognise and validate those beliefs and values that arose-“ through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities”.

Is it just possible that within your cosmology and the broad parameters of the thread that there is room for povs that are not seeking exclusively to support or smash the pov of the OP?

“Einstein was a humanist and a socialist. He never followed any religion.”

Jesus wept!....How many times does it need to be established, ceded and agreed that Einstein was a non believer?
Does he have to be a religious person to recognise- “The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition”.

Why the hell can’t we take him at his word and recognise him as an Atheist who recognised these “highest principles for our aspirations and judgments”?


“It is disingenuous for anyone to bring in an Einstein quote in a discussion such as this.”

No…what is “disingenuous” is to meet the quote with baseless assumptions, innuendo and misrepresentation, not tidy up, then move on to compound the complete misreading with misdirected tunnel vision that sees and seeks only the establishment that Einstein was an Atheist….an Atheist…an Atheist…

“He would say things such as, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Shit! Did Einstein say that!? Guess that must mean he was an Atheist!
And that’s the only pertinent point to consider or establish…..over and over again.

Pity we didn’t establish and agree on that fact way back in post 291-
……………….
"He nowhere claims that there is a god"

That's right, he claims that we should consider and value religious principles and 'belief' itself.
……………………

“: "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

Dam!....did you see that!.....Einstein was an Atheist!.....Who woulda thunk it?

Snip extraneous superfluous repetition of loooong established fact that Einstein was an indeed an Atheist.

“As I said above it is disingenuous and constitutes the "twist" I was talking about.”

Oh….you mean the “twist” was that point at which I placed the entire emphasis of my post on trying to convince everyone that Einstein was not an Atheist?

Are we called upon to 'believe' in the existance of this much refered to but unseen "twist"?


“ Einstein would have been much in tune with say, Martin Luther King,”

Yes…I ‘believe’ that’s true….and I don’t believe they would have entered into dialogue, even with such contrasting cosmologies, with shields raised and defensive to the point of preset assumptions, repeated misreading and ongoing misrepresentation.

“ except for the religion part, and that is the nature of the quote you posted. It is quite secular.”

Ya see….this is what troubles me...I understand these boards have been an ongoing war zone between believers and non- fundies and slayers. What I don’tunderstand is the automatic assumption (so clearly demonstrated in your posts) that any contributor must be batting (with agendas overt and hidden) for one side or the other.
The entire Einstein quote sought the middle ground between the extremes of scientific rationalism and those beliefs that “come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities.”

The “nature of the quote I posted” is not “quite secular” nor ‘quite religious’…
it is a beautiful, eloquent, fair and balanced recognition of the positive aspects of both……
from an Atheist…
lest we forget.

[immoderate]

320. Sorry if you thought my post belabored the point.

But that's what I believed you were asking for.

I'm left wondering just what it is you would have me believe. The OP of this thread is "There is a god (believe it.)" Which side of that do you fall on?

The thesis in the Einstein tract is that schools are for socialization as well as transmittal of hard knowledge. I agree with that, and have observed it in my practice as an educator.

My beliefs are pretty much in line with Einstein's already. So I'm wondering where you're going with this. If the tract doesn't support your point of view, why present it? Otherwise this is the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority. But Einstein was a physicist, and had no credentials as a philosopher. Even so, his speech was a diplomatic bit of flummery. The so-called Judeo Christian tradition is a long tradition, mainly of Christians killing Jews. Indeed, it was going on as Einstein spoke. He qualifies it by throwing the term "religious." The Jewish tradition does not bode any better. The Old Testament is a tribal religion, where the niceties are circumscribed to its members, and outsiders are subject to avoidance, enslavement, and annihilation. My grandparents, to a degree, represented that. The parade of non-Jewish girls I brought home to meet the family helped to mitigate those beliefs. Should I have stuck to that tradition?

Christianity plays to a different scope of group. It applies to a broader, "multi-cultural" society, and attempts to apply Jewish ethics (the higher tradition) to the broad population. Christianity has no culture of its own, but adapts to traditions of those who adopt it. But if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, you're out of the game. Should I believe Jesus? If he says, "Be nice," I do. If he says, "I'm the son of god," I don't.

So what is it that you (or Einstein) would have me believe that I don't already believe?

--IMM

[tomcalab]

300. Where Do We Disagree?

Thank you for your response. I have pasted your response below and have inserted my comments.

--------------------

"Ironic that you leave us with the thoughts of Einstein, an atheist."

Response: Einstein was an atheist. I was an atheist also. My understanding is that Einstein did not die an Atheist.
---------------------------------

"And Einstein's words, as usual, taken out of context."

Response: This thread is about religion and the comments by Einstein were not meant to mislead anyone, or prove any point. They were there to ponder....that's all.
----------------------------------------------------
"...you had tried to blame Darwin for exacerbating the position of women and the white power structure during the Victorian era. You never mentioned the 1700 years of Christianity in Europe that led to that situation."

Response: Are you implying that Darwin's writing is influenced by Christianity and the politics of the Victorian age?

My point was that politics (religious or governmental) affect science. Isn't that what you also claimed? I don't understand where we disagree.

------------------------------------------------------------
"you had tried to blame Darwin for exacerbating the position of women and the white power structure during the Victorian era."


Response: I believe the point I was making was that scientific theories can be affected by politics. Do you believe everything that Darwin wrote? If I were alive in Darwin's time; God would have not allowed me to believe that women or minorities were inherently inferior in any way to all human life. After all the Old Testament claims that we all evolved from Adam and Eve, and women flocked to the first century church.

--------------------------------------
"Col 3:11 Words like Jewish and non-Jewish, religious and irreligious, insider and outsider, uncivilized and uncouth, slave and free, mean nothing. From now on everyone is defined by Christ, everyone is included in Christ."
---Message bible

Do you believe that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights? If not, how, why, and in what way should those differences affect our society?

Good Day

[immoderate]

315. I think you have it backwards.

I'm not a biblical expert, but the bible does specify very different treatment for men and women in both testaments. Polygamy (multiple wives) is all over it, but not multiple husbands.

In the New Testament, wives are bidden to be subservient to their husbands, etc.

As for Darwin, I am not aware of errors. Do I believe what he said? Yup, taking into consideration he had no knowledge of microbiology we know today. My understanding is that DNA plays the role of an evolutionary computer and that, and subsequent discoveries reinforce the theories of Darwin. The differences usually noted about minorities are called "social Darwinism," and were not supported by Darwin or myself.

Does politics affect science? Sure, it tries. That's called "bad science." Examples: Lysenkoism, church imprisonment of Galileo, creationism, intelligent design. These are corrected in the course of applying the scientific method.

I believe that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. I also believe my parents created me. Also, you said that the bible says we all "evolved" from Adam and Eve. I think that should be "descended." The writers of the bible had no notion of evolution. Although I think that the story of the tree of knowledge in Genesis is a good parable for the onset of self awareness.

I'm glad that you didn't use Einstein as an argument for theism, and only threw it in as food for thought. As I pointed out elsewhere in this marvelous thread, that would be disingenuous.

BTW, congratulations on starting a thread that gets over 300 posts! Most DUers never get a thread going with that volume of response.

You have a good day too. :)

--IMM

[Random_Australian]

317. I see some flaws, I think! Let's talk. :)

"My point was that politics (religious or governmental) affect science. Isn't that what you also claimed? I don't understand where we disagree"

I'll disagree with that. The most politics can change is what individual scientists write and say. If they say something wrong, they will get shot down, and quickly. Most of us plain don't care about our preconceptions and are far more interested in the truth.

(Well, now it is like that. The further back in time you go, the more that becomes untrue)

" If I were alive in Darwin's time; God would have not allowed me to believe that women or minorities were inherently inferior in any way to all human life"

Odd that you say that, because I could have sworn She DID allow people of all sorts to believe that.:shrug:

"Do you believe that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights?"

Yup. That is what evolution says anyway.

[seaglass]

83. I don't know who believes we evolved from apes, but I do know

that scientists don't believe that.

[tomcalab]

153. Really !

Thanks for chiming in.

Do you have any links you can share.

[seaglass]

190. Sure.

http://www.becominghuman.org/

You'll have to watch the documentary, it's under lineages.

[greyl]

43. Begin with the world we have right now,

then remove God.

[tomcalab]

55. I would hate to think

I would hate to live in a world without God. But I have... and it's not a pretty place.

Without God, people lose hope......that's not good.

[greyl]

67. Can you please describe what would happen? nt

[tomcalab]

68. Yes

I'm getting tired. I'll be glad to respond tomorrow. Thank you for your interest and enjoy the rest of your evening.

[tomcalab]

72. A World Without God

Never did this before..so I'll give it my best.

Here's what I know from experience. God is a spirit whose fruit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance for the people that find him inside themselves.

So....

Without God I would assume that these "fruits of the spirit" would have to come from our own human nature which means that all of these traits are subject to our own evolution. Especially if one believes that human nature is nothing more than pathways created within our brains. No pathways...no traits.

Theoretically, we could evolve into a creature unable to realize any, or all, of these "fruit of the spirit". Just like certain animals traits are subject to natural selection.

So, if evolution is true, then the meek, gentle, good, temperant, and peace loving people should have been victims of natural selection about 6 million years ago (only a guess, but you get the point).

We have not lost any of these "fruits of the spirit" since it was written about in the book of Galatians approximately 2000 years ago. I know... a hickup on the evolutionary scale, but it's the only date I can supply.

If God is eternal, then we, as humans, will always have the ability to enjoy love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance.

That's the best I can do right now...I hope it helps. I know it helped me. Thanks for asking the tough questions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Do you think natural selection would go against "meek, gentle, good" etc.?

There's no particular reason to think so. Altruism has a lot of benefits for animals - when they cooperate they can get food sources they wouldn't otherwise be able to (hunting together), take care of each other's young while feeding, and so on. Being 'peace loving' - by which I assume you mean not attacking each other, as opposed to other species, means less death, less effort expended on fighting, and helps build trust for cooperation. Our species has relied on cooperation for a long time, it seems (physically, each human, or our ancestors, aren't particularly impressive, but we've been using tools for millions of years, which requires teaching others how to make them, and we see cooperative hunting in chimpanzees as well - it's quite possible our common ancestor did too), so natural selection should favour behaviour that increases cooperation.

Some species have evolved into a system where males spend most of their time fighting to control the abiltiy to mate with many females. But many species also have the rough approach we do - there is some competition to mate with another individual, but it rarely becomes violent, and once paired up, they can recognise boundaries with other pairs, and respect them. It's a stable system allowing successful raising of young (more than 2 per pair, where possible), and thus it has been evolutionarily successful, in many cases.

[tomcalab]

103. Very well said

Very well said, and very logical. Thank you for your insights into this subject. I enjoyed reading your response, and it was quite enlightening.

A lot of what you said makes perfect sense, and is very believable. I look forward to following this debate.

One of the questions I have is why do we have species preservation?, or the innate desire to cooperate? Does this trait come from the organized arrangement of chaos, or is it intelligently designed? I could see why a creator would want to protect his creation, but why would chaos? I do not discount all of evolution, but I do question how we have interpreted it.

Thanks again for a wonderful debate, and simply great information.

[cyborg_jim]

105. Meh.

One of the questions I have is why do we have species preservation?, or the innate desire to cooperate?

Com$e on now, really. These aren't mysterious or difficult questions to answer.

1) Species that do not have species preservation do not exist for long enough for anyone to debate about.
2) Any social animal without an innate desire to co-operate will not function as a social animal for long.

Does this trait come from the organized arrangement of chaos, or is it intelligently designed?

You tell me, you're a mathematician; does the simple co-operative actions of an ant colony require a complex or simple mathmatical model? Which one implies a creator? What doesn't imply a creator? How is your god falsified?

I could see why a creator would want to protect his creation, but why would chaos?

Protect? What protection are you imagining 'chaos' is performing upon us?

I do not discount all of evolution, but I do question how we have interpreted it.

Could you qualify that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. It's not that 'chaos wants to protect its creation'

but that genes that "play well together" are the ones that survive and reproduce. Or: "nothing succeeds like success". One thing you can say about all your ancestors: they were successes, at reproducing, while, say, Elizabeth the First wasn't, however 'successful' she may have been by societal standards.

Primarily you can think of this in terms of the genes inside one organism - a gene that produces a poisonous chemical in an organism will die out quickly (unless there's already a gene that somehow gives immunity, or restricts the poison to an invulnerable part, in which case the poison might be useful), while a gene that causes earlier development might be useful to an organism, in the right environment (while in the wrong environment, eg if it caused a plant to try to grow too early in the year, it would be a disadvantage - in which case the organism carrying it will die out in one environment, while in another it will thrive and reproduce, causing a divergence in the species). Or there may need to be 2 changes in genes for an evolution to be useful - if one gene lengthens a giraffe's neck, it may not increase the giraffe's chances of reproducing unless another gene has already increased the strength of the heart so blood can be pumped to the higher head.

But you can also consider whether genes are useful in combination with other genes outside one organism. This might be genes in completely different species - such as a gene in a flower that produces a certain pattern, and a gene in a bee that attracts the bee to that pattern. If both are present, and it benefits both organisms (or at least benefits one, and doesn't harm the other), then that makes those organisms more likely to survive, and thus reproduce. Or it can be cooperation between organisms of the same species - a gene (or more realistically, a group of genes) that decreases agression between siblings could be of benefit, because siblings are more likely to carry the same set of genes, so a non-agressive (or cooperative) aunt gets many of her genes passed on even if she doesn't herself reproduce, but her sister does. This can also work at a species level - with a species defined as 'everything to can mate and reproduce successfully', any trait that benefits both partners in reproducing will tend to be selected.

A lo

[greyl]

94. Can you think of any immediate effects we'd see? nt

[tomcalab]

108. I'll Try

If God came to earth and announced that he and heaven were to be no more, and everyone believed it then...

1)Suicide rates would increase.

2)Lusts of the flesh will become more prevalent

3)Survival of the fittest will prevail.

4)There would be less feeling of responsibility for our fellow man.

5) Opportunism and heinous crimes would increase. Especially when someone knows what they want and they are facing the finality of death without any promise of the hereafter.

6)Men will percieve their own desires as the final judge of what is wrong or right.

There's more, but I want to try to address some other responses before it gets too late.

I look forward to reading your response.

Thank you for your question.

[greyl]

110. No announcement, God just splits. nt

[tomcalab]

123. Okay

Depends on how much intervention he does on a daily basis. That...I am not privy to.

For myself...I would no longer recieve the help he gives me.

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

[greyl]

128. Let's say there is nothing that escapes his awareness, and

nothing happens which he hasn't foreseen.

[tomcalab]

137. I'm Sorry...what's the question?

Please state your question fully. This thread is getting a bit long, and I'm trying to respond to everyone.

Thank you for your patience.

[greyl]

157. I'm curious what immediate effects you expect we could detect if

God were removed from the world.
I don't mean ideas or concepts about God, I mean God.
Begin with the world we have right now, then remove God. No announcement or warning to humans, God just splits.
How would the world be different?

[tomcalab]

212. Cast Away

I really don't know, but I'll go ahead and entertain your thoughts with something.

The earth....
Let's say I put together an aquarium, and then leave it with no one to look after it. What would happen?

Each one of us......

Did you see the movie "Cast Away"? Tom Hanks was marooned on an island with no other humans to talk to or listen to. Out of his need to talk to someone, he put a face on a coconut and started talking to it. If God were no longer in our conscience then I would expect that we would recognize that we were alone, and create something in our mind that was no where near God's equivalent. We could talk to God's replacement, but we could not receive his love. We, as Tom Hanks did, would go mad.

The most successful addition recovery programs all acknowledge a "Higher Power" so that the human is no longer at the mercy of the substance.

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html


My experience is that when people, for what ever reason, decide to ignore their conscience they become more and more angry with themselves and with others, or become depressed. On the other hand, those who do turn inward and listen to their conscience find peace.

I beleive that the very first prayer God gives us to use in the Old Testament is:

Num 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
Num 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
Num 6:26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.


Thank you so much for asking this question.

[Finder]

133. Do you honestly believe acting civilized and having self-control...

and abiding by the law is all due to a deity?

Why do some theists believe this? Do you think you would engage in that behaviour if you didn't believe?

[tomcalab]

216. Honestly....

Honestly I believe that there is a governing sense of what is right, and what is wrong. God can do no wrong. And, God has(Bible)and does(conscience)communicate to us how we should behave.

"Why would some theists believe that acting civilized and having self-control and abiding by the law is all due to a deity?"

They shouldn't. Right from the very beginning Eve was deceived and broke God's law and Adam broke the law and, defied and rebelled against God's authority.

Adam knew there was a God and he still could not control himself so, I don't think it matters if you believe. That's why God forgives. But we have to truly repent and compensate anyone we hurt.

Have you seen that show "My name is Earl"? Could you imagine if everyone thought they needed to make things right with people they knew they have purposely hurt?


Before one brings a sin offering to God they must make things right with others.

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;
Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

It's tough following God's rules. I think that's why some people think they never will, and just give up. I had one person tell me that they had a conscience but that they ignore it.....at least he was honest.

Peace Be With You

[hunter]

134. Those believers in God seem sort of shallow...

Dad's not around so let's take his porsche, have a big party, and go trolling for hookers!

Rebecca De Mornay, Risky Business

Woot!

[Random_Australian]

71. With God, some lose hope.

Those without God don't lose hope.

Though I'll admit, some lose hope without God. No idea why, but I will take their word for it.

Explain your comment please.

[tomcalab]

75. No

with God no one loses hope.

Those who lose hope are without God, that's when people search for him.

Just because someone is an atheist does not mean that God rejects that person. God is always present, always ready to guide you. It's your choice to listen and your responsibility to take the time do so....not his.

You know...seek and you shall find. It's actually pretty amazing how close he is once you accept him into your life.

Once you do....things change. Things that you could never imagine could happen, start happening. Events become obvious interventions...and believe me I'm a real logical guy and I can simply not deny the direct intervention God has in my life once I start communicating with him.

I pride myself on logic and deductive reasoning and events have occurred which can only be attributed to a higher power. It's awesome and very real....no doubt what so ever in my mind.

I know a lot of stuff has really been screwed up by historical Christianity, so I mostly ignore Christians and spend my time reading for myself and discussing it with my wife. We spend hundreds of hours per month in discussion and my wife reads the Bible at least one hour a day.

It has really been fun, and challenging, but the rewards are real and quite clear.

I'm lucky because I'm retired and I know that most people don't have the time necessary to develop a understanding of how the whole God thing works. Too bad, but most people spend more time working on their golf swing, or bank accounts then they do developing their spiritual life.

Too bad, cause if they did this world would be in a lot better shape.

My in-laws are very religious and I would much rather hangout with them than with most of the other crowd. Why, because their lives are blessed. Things go smoother for them. Not as much strife. Things aren't perfect, but they are a heck of a lot better than a lifestyle full of vices, and dangerous behaviors.

I want everyone to have a good life. I really hate to see so many lost souls. The Bible works, but it is so unfortunate how people have been convinced that it's bad, because it really is not.

Thanks for all of your input and challenges. I appreciate where you are on this journey.

Have a nice ride......cheers

[Random_Australian]

78. Let's have a little look-see.

Warning: Before I start, I will tell you that a number of my statements may challenge your beliefs. As you are new to DU you may be unaccustomed to the manner. I will say beforehand that it is not my intent to offend you.

Ok, now let's have a look:

"with God no one loses hope"

This seems more a matter of definition than property of God to me - for instance, one who loses hope is by definition "without God", but there is no change other than losing hope, or in other words:

Define "God" as something that is "with you" only when you are happy.
Then when you are happy, you are "without God".

In other words, God does not cause hope, and is just arbitrarily "there with you" when you are happy and "not there with you" when you are sad.

In other words, you could have just said "those with hope are not those without hope"

*************

"Just because someone is an atheist does not mean that God rejects that person"

That is most encouraging to hear. It may not convince me that God actually exists, but it DOES convince me you are not a fundamentalist or anything.

"and your responsibility to take the time do so" moot point - no actions or responsibilities toward something that does not actually exist. (In my opinion)

**************

"Once you do....things change"

Again just a definition: reworded this says "when you change, things change for you"

"and believe me I'm a real logical guy "

We pretty much all are, deep down.

Logical that is, not guys! :blush: ;)


"I can simply not deny the direct intervention God has in my life once I start communicating with him."

Glad to hear your choices made you happy. :)


Sounds like it was a good choice for you.

**********************
"events have occurred which can only be attributed to a higher power"

Which, by you, can only be attributed to a higher power.

You're not God, so you don't get to rule out the other explanations. :)

"I know a lot of stuff has really been screwed up by historical Christianity, so I mostly ignore Christians "

Odd how the world works - what Christianity has added and taken from the world just makes me want to understand them more, so I don't ignore them. :) Just my viewpoint.

***********************

"Too bad, but most people spend more time working on their golf swing, or bank accounts then they do developing their spiritual life."

I agree mostly - to many things are pursued as ends unto themselves when they simply aren't.

BUT I will change one thing - it does not have to be developing one's spiritual life to be worthwhile. Lots of the intellectual pursuits and works of charity are worth their time aplenty.


*********************

Now things turn somewhat unpleasant:

"My in-laws are very religious and (...) things aren't perfect, but they are a heck of a lot better than a lifestyle full of vices, and dangerous behaviors."

If you are insinuating for one second that God or religion or whatever is the source of morality, or that atheist lead a life of "vices and dangerous behaviours" you'd better pride yourself on your debating skills, because the latter is at best a very unhealthy thinking pattern, and the former at best is a one-eyed view of the world.

*************************

"I want everyone to have a good life"

Good for you :thumbsup:


"The Bible works, but it is so unfortunate how people have been convinced that it's bad, because it really is not."

Well, I wonder if less than you think are convinced it is a bad thing.

I certainly don't, but I do think it was authored by humans.

****************************

Well, this is pretty much the end, but here is one last thing:

"I appreciate where you are on this journey"

Actually, and I don't mean this in a defensive way, you don't. You don't know very much about me, and no human brain has the capacity to know enough about the world to try to put that kind of order into it.

:)

Ok, cya later!

(Aren't you glad I finally got around to posting?)

[ChiciB1]

101. I Came Back To This Thread Because I Posted My Thoughts

rather early on yesterday. I was about to respond to what you just responded to with my own thoughts, but you beat me to it. You posted so much of what I feel so I don't want to be redundant. What does surprise me about this whole thread is that I NOW don't feel so "out of touch" or out of the "mainstream" as I did when I first posted my feelings about God.

One point that struck me in particular was the one about most people focusing on their golf swing and bank balances rather than spirituality and also the point about his in-laws having a better life because of their beliefs. I MUST say that THIS isn't a true scenario for me. I do realize you stated "most people" but having seen no statistical evidence of this how do you come to this conclusion???

I consider myself "retired" but retired because my husband and I agreed to bring his mother into our home to live with us because she was unable to care for herself. She married later than most and my husband is her 2nd of two children. After her husband died in '96 she was okay for a little while but slowly developed major dementia. Her other son, who is a Shriner, a Mason and has a wife who is in the Eastern Star wanted to put her in a home. My father-in-law had asked us right before he died to please take care of her and not put her away. My husband's brother lives 10 minutes away from her home, but we were the ones who took her in and she has been with us for over 7 years now. She is now 94 and suffers from severe Alzheimer's and she is unable to do anything by herself. We give her total care. Her Living Trust states that her home CANNOT be sold until she passes away so my husband also takes care of her place which is a 2 hour drive from our home. And his brother is entitled to half of that home, she has no money to speak of, just Social Secuirty which is used to pay the upkeep on her mobile home.

We take her back up there about every six weeks to visit her only living brother and her "other" son. Her other son NEVER comes to visit her so his religion or maybe his facade of religion seems hypocritical to me. As perhaps his belief in God.

I, on the other hand do seek out spiritual beliefs and most certainly try to reach out to others in need as does my husband, neither one of us practicing any religion. So, while I don't mean to be argumentative do you think that if I were to suddenly decide to simply believe in God that my life would change? I KNOW we've done the right thing by caring for her, but I will also say that as time goes by and she becomes less and less able to communicate, it makes it doubly hard on us. And I have to be honest here, both of us have begun to feel more and more stress and strain because we are the only ones who care for her. It's NOT her fault... we don't think that way, but neither one of us set out to be geriatric nurses.

I think perhaps there is "some" reason she has lived this long, and that WE are supposed to be learning something from caring for her even though most of the time she's in some other place, I'm just not sure it's God's will. I don't want to sound harsh, but one thing I HAVE learned is that I NEVER want to live like she's living, albeit she isn't aware of HOW she's living. But if I were betting on the odds, I'd say that if she knew how she was living, she herself would "opt out!"

She gets great care, doctors have told us we take EXCELLENT care of her... one of the reasons she's still here. She takes no medication and has no illness other than the obvious and she may live another 3 to 5 years.

To wrap this up, my thoughts are that she's still here so that her soul needs to learn how to accept others taking care of her, and for us we are learning lessons about care-giving so that if re-incarnation does exist, our souls have that extra knowledge in our next life. I could go on and on, but I'm still not sure that it's God who is control of this situation. It's just a "situation" and we are living it.

But I don't know HOW to play golf, and my bank balance isn't something I wish to ponder over every day. THAT could really DEPRESS me!

[tomcalab]

158. Not Bad at All

Below I have pasted your post and have inserted my responses.

Warning: Before I start, I will tell you that a number of my statements may challenge your beliefs. As you are new to DU you may be unaccustomed to the manner. I will say beforehand that it is not my intent to offend you.

Response: Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?


Ok, now let's have a look:

"with God no one loses hope"

This seems more a matter of definition than property of God to me - for instance, one who loses hope is by definition "without God", but there is no change other than losing hope, or in other words:

Define "God" as something that is "with you" only when you are happy.
Then when you are happy, you are "without God".

In other words, God does not cause hope, and is just arbitrarily "there with you" when you are happy and "not there with you" when you are sad.

In other words, you could have just said "those with hope are not those without hope"

Response: Okay, and are you interested in buying a bridge? - lol Only kidding. Wow! First God is not hope, nor does hope have anything what so ever to do with being happy or sad. So, I fail to see your point.

*************

"Just because someone is an atheist does not mean that God rejects that person"

That is most encouraging to hear. It may not convince me that God actually exists, but it DOES convince me you are not a fundamentalist or anything.

Response: I believe the response you are responding to is not necessarily my argument about the existence of God, but appears to be responses to some side issues I may have addressed. Either way, I appreciate your polite response.

"and your responsibility to take the time do so" moot point - no actions or responsibilities toward something that does not actually exist. (In my opinion)

Response: Ah, but God does exist. (In my opinion)

**************

"Once you do....things change"

Again just a definition: reworded this says "when you change, things change for you"

Response: No. I believe I was saying that the cause was necessary for the effect to happen. Certain things happen only when you develop a relationship with God.. Example: How can you get answers from a person if you refuse to communicate with him? Again, I'm explaining my relationship with God, not arguing for his existence.

"and believe me I'm a real logical guy "

We pretty much all are, deep down.

Response: No I am extremely logical. So much so that i have been quite successful as a trouble shooter. I excelled in mathematics and I used to be the guy who loved word problems in Algebra. If I could, I'd require a statistical analysis on anything that can be counted, before I made a logical deduction about the data set, and possible actions.

Logical that is, not guys!

Response:lol


"I can simply not deny the direct intervention God has in my life once I start communicating with him."

Glad to hear your choices made you happy.

Response: Oh not all of God's interventions have made me happy. In fact I would say it's just the opposite. I would say that overall I am at peace...not happy.

Sounds like it was a good choice for you.

Response: Yes, thank you. It has been difficult, and certainly not easy. But yes, so far learning how to please God, has been absolutely amazing.

**********************
"events have occurred which can only be attributed to a higher power"

Which, by you, can only be attributed to a higher power.

You're not God, so you don't get to rule out the other explanations.

Response: Remember, I am a very logical guy. And what has occurred to me is not coincidence. I have been through some absolutely amazing trials during the last 4 years. I was not just going back and forth to work everyday in some hum-drum life. We are talking about bing a whistle-blower, retaliation. court cases, health problems that modern medicine can not explain, and a lot of dealing with very evil minded people who tried to, but could not take me down. God was at the helm.

"I know a lot of stuff has really been screwed up by historical Christianity, so I mostly ignore Christians "

Odd how the world works - what Christianity has added and taken from the world just makes me want to understand them more, so I don't ignore them. Just my viewpoint.

Response: I have come to ignore some sects when I am no longer interested in developing my understanding of the Bible with their flawed teachings. Right now, my wife and I are tearing apart this whole "trinity" thing. Talk about a loaded gun, man it is incredible what lengths some churches will go to to support the pagan impurities they brought in.

***********************

"Too bad, but most people spend more time working on their golf swing, or bank accounts then they do developing their spiritual life."

I agree mostly - to many things are pursued as ends unto themselves when they simply aren't.

BUT I will change one thing - it does not have to be developing one's spiritual life to be worthwhile. Lots of the intellectual pursuits and works of charity are worth their time aplenty.

Response: Yes, but what is the motivation for people to be charitable? Because thins are going well. Because they don't need a new car right now. Most people work under "Charity begins at home", but God requires it. Good Samaritan stuff. As far as income, God wants 10% off the top to go to supporting charity. Man just think of all the good we could do if people actually believed they were obligated to give 10% to charity.

*********************

Now things turn somewhat unpleasant:

"My in-laws are very religious and (...) things aren't perfect, but they are a heck of a lot better than a lifestyle full of vices, and dangerous behaviors."

If you are insinuating for one second that God or religion or whatever is the source of morality, or that atheist lead a life of "vices and dangerous behaviors" you'd better pride yourself on your debating skills, because the latter is at best a very unhealthy thinking pattern, and the former at best is a one-eyed view of the world.

Response: Not at all. I enjoy all pleasant people no matter where they acquired their social skills. The Bible makes it quite clear how we are to treat each other and how we are to treat ourselves.

*************************

"I want everyone to have a good life"

Good for you

Response: I appreciate that.


"The Bible works, but it is so unfortunate how people have been convinced that it's bad, because it really is not."

Well, I wonder if less than you think are convinced it is a bad thing.

I certainly don't, but I do think it was authored by humans.

Response: The New testament was authored by humans. The Jews claim that the Old Testament was at least divinely inspired. The first 5 books were written by Moses, some of which was dictated by God. Moses was in direct communication with God. The other books are accepted as historically correct and are in no need of editing. Every word in the Bible was physically written by humans.

****************************

Well, this is pretty much the end, but here is one last thing:

"I appreciate where you are on this journey"

Actually, and I don't mean this in a defensive way, you don't. You don't know very much about me, and no human brain has the capacity to know enough about the world to try to put that kind of order into it.

Response: Splitting hairs here. What I was saying was that I respect people's opinions knowing that all of our opinions are based upon our life's experience. I was not saying I liked what was said. You know...love your enemy stuff.



Ok, cya later!

(Aren't you glad I finally got around to posting?)

Response: Thank you for the exchange. You kinda scared me at first, and I kept waiting for you to really get rough. But actually, your response was one of the most pleasant and enjoyable I have received.

Cheers

[Random_Australian]

165. Spirual acrobatics continue.....

For the first thing, I was avoiding overuse of words by using "happy" when I meant "with hope". Reading it again knowing this should illuminate my argument... or perhaps not.

Oh yes, when I write (break) it means I intend to discuss part of your quote, while continuing it immediately, and (...) means I am skipping part of the quote.

"Remember, I am a very logical guy. And what has occurred to me is not coincidence. I have been through some absolutely amazing trials during the last 4 years. (...), and a lot of dealing with very evil minded people who tried to, but could not take me down. God was at the helm. "

Well, I'm sorry to hear you had such a bad time, am glad to hear you've got through it. But back to discussing religion:

1) "And what occured to me is not co-incidence"

Well, the variables may well have not been independent, but what calculation did you run to get a p-value to reject H(0)?

;) Just kidding, but more seriously, I will ask: What evidence do you have that this is not about factors in cognition, rather than probability independent of yourself?

2) "God was at the helm" - I will ask (and here is where I must be careful to avoid offense) - what evidence do you have for this not bieng an effect of you believing in God?

"The New testament was authored by humans. (...) Every word in the Bible was physically written by humans."

I don't think you quite got what I meant - I meant the Bible was authored by humans without anything coming from God, because I simply don't believe God exists.

"Splitting hairs here. What I was saying was that I respect people's opinions knowing that all of our opinions are based upon our life's experience. (...)"

Ah, ok! Sorry, but there have been a few instances of people saying that atheism was akin to a juvenile rejection of God before, and they used eerily the same words... just a co-incidence. All fixed then!

"Thank you for the exchange. You kinda scared me at first, and I kept waiting for you to really get rough. But actually, your response was one of the most pleasant and enjoyable I have received."

Thankyou for your words - I try to keep things nice in here, and it is good to know that I have not offended anyone! :)

[tomcalab]

254. Why the title "Spiritual acrobatics continue....."?

Thank you for your response, and for taking the time and energy to make this a beneficial exchange between us.

I will address a few things you brought up, but first I would like to say that I have been consistent in my opinions, but at the same time open to new ideas. Why the title "Spiritual acrobatics continue....."?


Let's continue........
--------------------------------------

"What evidence do you have for this not being an effect of you believing in God?"

Response: I challenge my beliefs. I am a free-thinker. I do not assume that everything happens because God is at the helm. My belief in God does not make everything I would like to happen...happen. I can not will my will on the world.

-----------------------------------

"What evidence do you have that this is not about factors in cognition, rather than probability independent of yourself?"

Response: I too am a very logical guy, and have been an atheist and an agnostic. I am 53 years old, and I am retired. That being said, certain events in my life defy a logical explanation, and a series of them defy coincidence. The probability of a series equals the product of the probability of each event. Therefore: a series of events, and then a number of these "series of events" combined would bring the probability of them happening closer to zero. If you have an anomaly in an equation and then you start finding a pattern in the anomalies, you soon realize that something is causing these anomalies. God is first a revelation, that is demonstrated by my knowledge, and my experiences.

I understand why knowledgeable people require proof of something before they accept it as fact. I can not prove God to you. You have to believe in God. The name of this thread is "There is a God (Believe it)", and my discussion ends with the statement that God exists in the minds of billions of people. I'm proposing that there must be a reason for this, a pathway (if that applies), for so many humans to believe in God. Whether or not this "pathway" is God, or was designed by God remains unknown to science.

----------------------------------

"There have been a few instances of people saying that atheism was akin to a juvenile rejection of God "

Response: Some people twist what the Bible says into very hurtful statements. I think I know why a Bible reader might say something like this, but they are showing their ignorance more than their knowledge of God. Therefore, they are juveniles in God. God warns me that I will be judged by how I judge others. I try to be a fair guy.

------------------------------------
" I try to keep things nice in here, and it is good to know that I have not offended anyone!"

Response: I am not offended, and thank you for your consideration

----------------------------------

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thank you for sincere questions.

...........Cheers

[cyborg_jim]

89. It's a shame

I know a lot of stuff has really been screwed up by historical Christianity, so I mostly ignore Christians and spend my time reading for myself and discussing it with my wife. We spend hundreds of hours per month in discussion and my wife reads the Bible at least one hour a day.

People are wasting so much time on ancient mythology.

Just because someone is an atheist does not mean that God rejects that person. God is always present, always ready to guide you. It's your choice to listen and your responsibility to take the time do so....not his.

I always listen to mighty Zeus. It is you who are worshipping false gods.

I really hate to see so many lost souls.

Blame your god. He's the one who decided to care intimately about the affairs of apes who think far too much of themselves - to the point where they're convinced that mighty beings that stride the infinite universe are incredibly concerned with a tiny number of life-forms on a tiny little rock, in a tiny little solar-system in a tiny little galaxy.

If there's nothing more annoying about believers it's smug arrogance.

The Bible works, but it is so unfortunate how people have been convinced that it's bad, because it really is not.

The Bible convinced me it's bad - or at least it's no better than any other collection of ancient stories.

[Zhade]

150. Funny, that's the exact opposite of my experience.

I opened myself to (the never seen, never proven, by any believer, ever) god, and participated fully.

I was a sick, scared, hurt, confused person who got more so the longer I tried to believe in a god for which there is no evidence (outside believer's fervent wishes).

Once I accepted that I'm incapable of believing in unsupported, unseen, likely nonexistent deities - I became a better person. The change was remarkable.

My experience makes a lie of your premise.

[tomcalab]

208. Doesn't Surprise Me

I did the same as you, but please......

A premise is not a lie...unless you are saying I'm a liar.

I am being truthful. I don't know what I said to make you think I was a liar.

I'm sorry if I struck a sore spot with you.

It's all good. Years ago I could have written a response very similar to yours. I'm just in a different place in my life right now.

I'm 53 years old, retired, and I told myself 4 years ago I was going to try and understand the Bible.

My comments are a culmination of my experiences, and my knowledge. I know that DU is predominately atheist, but here I am and I am enjoying everyone's responses.

I'm not out to convert anyone, I'm only interested in challenging myself. DU has afforded me a great challenge. Very smart and knowledgeable people here, and I really appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread.

Thank you for yours.

Cheers

[cyborg_jim]

88. You live in a world without gods whether you like it or not

The world remained the same. At best your perspective of it changed. Probably because you are too weak an individual to consider trying to acheive anything by yourself. Since the Jeudo-Christian Yahweh character (whom I am going to assume you arrogantly titled as 'God' as if that would be too obvious) promises everything will be made right with only the right amount of faith (i.e. not actually doing shit about a situation except praying to him) it's certainly attractive to those sorts.

So what hope are you losing exactly? And in a universe where your god still fails to exist inspite of your insistence otherwise what hope have you gained?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

114. You win!

Snarkiest post of the day!

Wish I were there to pat you on the back. REALLY HARD.

[tomcalab]

129. Charity

I'm sorry if I have upset you in any way.

I have not lost hope, and I am not a loser, I am sorry if I come across as arrogant (but I'm not), and I want to do as much as I can to help others.

Your insistence that God does not exist gives you no reason to act in accordence with God's rules.

1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1Co 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

This is the hope that God brings, and man can not acheive without him.

[beam me up scottie]

271. Was it charitable of you to insult, misrepresent and judge other posters?

A lot of people hear push the "who created the creator" issue, which when I answer it for them they simply can not fathom the concept of anything existing outside of our physical world and sensual perceptions. I can, and so can billions of other people.

Yeah, cuz we're stupid like that.

I agree that some people look and act like they evolved from apes

Unlike you, of course, who I'm sure is the spitting image of Michelangelo's David.:eyes:

They got this whole ape thing they got hanging over them.

You act like being an ape is a bad thing.

I think that people who do not follow God's rule suffer consequences that can be avoided and that they can also adversely affect others around them.

Yeah, those damn evil atheists again, good thing people like you are around to keep us in line with God's commandments.

Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator. Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Athism is a religion.

Uh huh. Atheism is a religion like not having herpes is a disease.




Then there was your terrifying prediction of what would happen to the world if God went buh-bye, in other words, if everyone were to stop believing in eternal punishment and an afterlife - just like those evil godless atheists:

2)Lusts of the flesh will become more prevalent

3)Survival of the fittest will prevail.

4)There would be less feeling of responsibility for our fellow man.

5) Opportunism and heinous crimes would increase. Especially when someone knows what they want and they are facing the finality of death without any promise of the hereafter.

6)Men will percieve their own desires as the final judge of what is wrong or right.

And just how charitable was your statement that your in-laws live blessed lives because they are morally superior to lesser and non-christians?:

My in-laws are very religious and I would much rather hangout with them than with most of the other crowd. Why, because their lives are blessed. Things go smoother for them. Not as much strife. Things aren't perfect, but they are a heck of a lot better than a lifestyle full of vices, and dangerous behaviors.

You also repeatedly chastised a poster for using profanity:

I have a moral obligation to myself to not perpetuate something that I feel may be irreverent or vulgar to someone else.

yet to this liberal, your disingenuous premise and faux naivete when confronted by people who resent your implications is far more vulgar than any profanity could ever be.


I'll just end this by echoing the sentiments of my fellow atheists, your Hateful, Vengeful, Jealous, Cruel and Murderous God exists in your imagination, and thankfully for us, only in your imagination.

[tomcalab]

307. May You Find Peace

I have not tried to upset anyone, yet you seem upset for some reason. I am really quite perplexed at the whole scene.

It does not matter to me if you believe in God. Your lack of belief in God does not affect the existence of God, so therefore I am not trying to force my beliefs on you or on anyone else. I am merely discussing them.

I'm not sure why you are so interested in my post or what I have to say. So why you spend so much time reading and responding to it?

One thing that Einstein said that helped him keep his temper with others with which he disagreed was that he could not will his will on other people. He would think of this when others made him upset. I find his advice is of use to me, even though I know he was not a believer of a personal God.

May you find peace my friend.

[Random_Australian]

314. I don't get why you are suprised.

You said that those who don't follow God's laws suck... do you know what people conventionally mean when they refer to those "who don't follow God's laws" - that's right! It's the atheists.

You said that atheism was a religion.

Then you said that we ought to be nice to one another, unlike how you are bieng treated. (and implying you were bieng nice)

Three things. Three things that your post has spectacularly in common with those who routinely treat atheists like scum.

That is why dear Bmus took offense.

No wait - four things. You also said that you and the select others had special senses the rest of us don't.

I see it as the same way as those weirdos who tell me I am hellbound and whatnot - since I don't have to live with them I'm rather patient, but the likes of Bmus put up with enough in the real world not to take it here.

Perhaps you do not understand at this point, so I will restate to clarify:

- Atheists are those who pay no attention to God, who do not follow Her laws.

- You said those without God are immoral argh-a-licious persons.

I think you see the logical implication now.

[beam me up scottie]

327. Thanks, RA.

But as you can see, christian privilege and supremacy is alive and well on DU and in Amerikkka.

Hell, it's thriving under this administration.


Now really, why would we take offense just because someone says they're morally superior to us because their god told them so? :sarcasm:

[Random_Australian]

328. I wonder of my message got through?

Will tomcalab understand me?

And now I must go address the idiot who thinks that because I don't agree with the left-wing theists on things about God, I obviously don't agree with them that homophobia - practically homo-hysteria by now, needs to be addressed.

:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

326. Einstein resented christian supremacy, too. And don't call me friend, pal.

Christians who think they're better than non-christians are not only NOT my friends, they're a huge part of what's wrong with this administration and half of this country.

I can't tell if you're just oblivious to christian privilege and the fact that you're a christian supremacist, or if you're being willfully obtuse, since you chose not to clarify any of the statements I took issue with in my previous post.

And I don't care.

People like me will NEVER be allowed to live in peace as long as people like YOU keep spreading religious intolerance.

[Random_Australian]

172. Uh uh uh, nasty words there were.

I'd thankyou for maintaining some civility here.

[tomcalab]

203. It's All Good.

Thanks for you comments, but it's all okay. I really am quite pleased with the vast majority of the responses I've received. DU is a great bunch of people. Very intelligent!

Cheers

[ChiciB1]

4. Boy... You SURE Messed Up My Brain!

I was once a DEVOTED Catholic, believed in it all and participated to an extent that was more than normal. As I grew older I began questioning a great deal about the religion and went on a search for another religion I could feel comfortable with. Didn't find one!

I was ALWAYS taught that when it came to GOD, ask NO questions... just believe! Well, that's my problem now. I really want to say I just believe, but if there is a God and I'm not fully committed and feel I actually believe, then it's all a lie!! And there are those ten commandments and one of them says "Thou Shalt Not Lie!" So that would make me a hypocrite AND a liar!

I've decided I must be an agnostic, but others tell me that I'm not because I have spiritual beliefs and believe in re-incarnation! I seriously doubt that I alone am going to be singled out by God wherein he/she gives me a sign or a tap on the shoulder announcing his/her presence... but I'm constantly wondering why I just can't "just believe" and no questions asked!

[tomcalab]

12. I hear you....

I can certainly empathize with your story. Thank you for sharing it.

The commandment is not about lying it's about bearing false witness. Some false teachers have caused a lot of confusion.

Do not beleive everything your told... question authority and seek at least three sources.

[salvorhardin]

9. In order...

I'm removing extraneous whitespace from the quoted parts of your post...

Do laws exist? I've not seen some laws, but I've experienced the effects of their existence.
Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of a law, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?
And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of the law?
Answer.....Law enforcement.

Actually, if you depend on law enforcement to enforce the spirit of the law then you're looking to the wrong authority. It's law enforcement's job to enforce the law, nothing more or less. It's up to the courts to interpret the law.

Does God exist? I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).
Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of God, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?
And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of God?
Answer....My conscience.

How do you know your conscience isn't merely an artifact or byproduct of the way your brain works? How do you know you can trust your conscience?

Can God be physically detected or measured?
Are there "things" on this earth that you can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or measure with current scientific instruments?
If you said "no", then good luck trying to prove it.
If you said "yes", then good luck trying to prove it.

That still doesn't mean they don't exist.

All you're saying here is that somewhere in the universe there might possibly be something that we don't know about. I would say given the sheer vastness of the universe that that's a given. How does a planetoid 100 million lightyears from home have anything to do with any gods?

And if you're trying to say that there is a god, but it can not be detected with any of our senses or measured with any current scientific instruments then what effect does this god have on our lives? This is also a contradiction because if this god does have an effect on our lives, then we can detect and measure it which would put this god smack dab in the middle of the natural realm.

Still, why would someone choose to believe in something for which there is no physical measurement? Why would someone believe in the existence of something simply because of what appears to be superstitious writings of people who lived thousands of years ago and has been used to influence more wars, death, and hatred than any other influence in the course of recorded history? Why?

Brainwashing?
Forced submission?
Lack of intelligence?
Mental illness?
Mindless tradition?

Is this really what we think of those who believe in God?

I don't think any of those things. I just think those who believe in god(s) are wrong. C'est la vie.

And, how do we plan to solve these problems? By mandatory education(brainwashing), punishment(forced submission), drugs to treat the mentally challenged or mentally ill, or by isolationism (mindless tradition)?

Well, first of all, real education is not brainwashing but merely encouraging people to ask questions, and providing them with the cognitive tools (deductive reasoning, etc.) to find those answers on their own.

Secondly, I'm not aware of anyone suggesting any of the other things you mention. Unless you can provide specific instances of such then I would suggest you are erecting a strawman.

or is it Human nature?
If it is human nature to believe in God then will we eventually evolve, or become victims of natural selection?
In a million years or so will we humans evolve into a superior creature that has no genetic tendency to believe in God.
Until then, God exists in the minds of billions of people

If religiosity is part of human nature, then it is important to understand it. Not necessarily so that religion or the god-belief may be stamped out but so we might understand ourselves better. This benefits theists as well since it may give them the tools they need to keep their belief in god(s) while not being victimized by those who would usurp those beliefs for their own designs (e.g. Sun Myung-Moon, James Dobson, to name just two).

But you have one thing right. Billions of people believe. I wish they didn't but, again, c'est la vie.

[tomcalab]

14. Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I appreciate your efforts.

[stopbush]

11. No one can prove that Zeus doesn't exist...

if only Zeus was the "higher father" that Dim Son talked to before he went to war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. People believe in different gods

Many believe in roughly the same idea, and to prove it, they use a capital letter (which I do regard as mindless tradition). But others believe other things - I note you don't use the plural 'gods' once. No, I don't believe it's "human nature to believe in God"; it may be human nature to tend to believe in gods, but that is a generalisation, because significant numbers don't.

The overwhelming majority of people have the same idea of gods as their parents; which does seem to point to some combination of 'mindless tradition', 'forced submission', and 'brainwashing', in decreasing importance. I don't understand your point when you put forward "more of the same" as the cure for these.

Natural selection would only weed out a genetic component of believing in gods if it caused people to reproduce less. That can apply to violent religions, or to religions that think the planet can be trashed because it's about to end - but unfortunately, both those tend to take the rest of us with them. I do think that better education will stop the "I inherited my religion" tendency. It will be interesting to see what happens to religion when it stops being something you get labelled with as a child (which I think will eventually happen, on a wide scale).

[tomcalab]

18. Excellent!

Great food for thought......thank you.

[immoderate]

131. Don't forget the Shakers.

The Shakers believed in celibacy for all their adherents. They were very nice people but they're all gone. :shrug:

Conversely, there are those that believe that pornography desensitizes people and turns them off to sex. Logically, those people should have outbred long ago.:bounce:

--IMM

[varkam]

17. Things that make you go 'Hmmmm....'

Does God exist? I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).

That's a sentiment that presupposes creationism. You and I both lock at a rock. You experience the wonders of god's creation and point to that as evidence for god's existence. I see the product of millions of years of physical forces. In other words, that sort of logic attempts to prove creation by pointing to our physical surroundings which really isn't convincing. Intelligent Design is a step up, but it's still basically creationism in a bad tux.

Can God be physically detected or measured?

Are there "things" on this earth that you can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or measure with current scientific instruments?

If you said "no", then good luck trying to prove it.

If you said "yes", then good luck trying to prove it.

That still doesn't mean they don't exist.

Yes and no - it really depends on how you define god. If you think god is someone who just sort of started the ball rolling and has been taking a nap ever since the big bang, then probably not. If you think god is someone who is ever present, intervenes into and cares about human affairs, and listens to prayers, then yes we should be able to detect his or her or its presence. Case in point, take the recent study that showed prayer (or rather, being prayed for) has no effects on recovering from surgery. Given those results, many theists took the line that god can't be detected in the physical realm. Something tells me, however, that if the study came about and said that people who were prayed for faired much better then they would be singing a different tune.

Concerning the last line, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, true. But absence of evidence is not evidence of existence, either.



Do laws exist? I've not seen some laws, but I've experienced the effects of their existence.

Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of a law, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of the law?

Answer.....Law enforcement.



Does God exist? I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).

Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of God, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of God?

Answer....My conscience.


Can God be physically detected or measured?

Are there "things" on this earth that you can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or measure with current scientific instruments?

If you said "no", then good luck trying to prove it.

If you said "yes", then good luck trying to prove it.

That still doesn't mean they don't exist.


Still, why would someone choose to believe in something for which there is no physical measurement? Why would someone believe in the existence of something simply because of what appears to be superstitious writings of people who lived thousands of years ago and has been used to influence more wars, death, and hatred than any other influence in the course of recorded history? Why?

Brainwashing?

Forced submission?

Lack of intelligence?

Mental illness?

Mindless tradition?

Is this really what we think of those who believe in God? And, how do we plan to solve these problems? By mandatory education(brainwashing), punishment(forced submission), drugs to treat the mentally challenged or mentally ill, or by isolationism (mindless tradition)?


or is it Human nature?

If it is human nature to believe in God then will we eventually evolve, or become victims of natural selection?

In a million years or so will we humans evolve into a superior creature that has no genetic tendency to believe in God.



I'll take mindless tradition for 200, Alex. It's not a matter of coincidence that there's a higher concentration of Muslims in Beirut than there are Christians in Atlanta. People generally believe whatever their parents tell them to believe.

I'm not sure how we would fight mindless tradition with mindless tradition. I don't intend to tell my children that there is no god. I intend to tell them to make up their own minds on the matter once they have evaluated the evidence. As far as mindless traditions go, I think a mindless tradition of being skeptical and evaluating evidence wouldn't be that bad a tradition. Although punishment sounds pretty good, too :evilgrin:

Insofar as human nature is concerned - what does that say about people who don't believe? Are those people somehow less than human?

Until then, God exists in the minds of billions of people

Very, very true.

[tomcalab]

20. Great Input !

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I appreciate your time, effort, and comments.

Great input!

[varkam]

32. You're welcome :)

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[CrispyQ]

24. God is irrelevant.

If you believe in free will then it doesn't matter if your ethics are defined by a supreme being, holy book or if you define them yourself. The key thing is, moment to moment, do you choose to follow your ethical code or do you abandon it? I know many religious people who abandon their code but believe they are morally superior to me because their code is derived from the holy book & mine is not. Yet if we were to compare codes, I'm sure they would find mine equal in morality to theirs with the exception of belief in god.

[tomcalab]

25. Ethics

Ethics requires a set of rules which defines the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

You are correct, believing in God is a seperate issue.

But the idea that a creator knows what is best for his creation is not hard to grasp.

Thanks for your input!

[Zhade]

31. There is a god? Prove it.

NT!

[tomcalab]

33. I did

God exists in the minds of billions of people.

[Zhade]

38. That's just an assertion.

1) the concept of god existing in people's minds is not evidence of said gods' existence.

2) we have no way of knowing who does and does not really believe in god inside their mind, as we aren't mind-readers.

[tomcalab]

41. Thought Provoking Response

Thank you for your thought provoking response.

God exists in the minds of billions of people.

Can he be measured? I addressed that in the original post.

Polls have been taken and people say they believe in God. Many people talk to God for hours every day.

I think a valid question raised was whether or not God manifests himself as our conscience.

Do we have a conscience?

Some people admit they have a conscience and tell me they purposly ignore it. I appreciate their honesty.

Other people deny they have a conscience or the need for one. That scares me.

[Evoman]

49. Yes, but it is simply an assumption that god manifests itself

as your conscience. How do you know that your conscience isn't simply a evolutionary adapation to prevent your from exterminating your kin and close friends, to increase your individual fitness. After all, your conscience isn't stopping your from throwing away leftovers while kids all around the world die with swollen bellies.

For that matter, how do you know your conscience isn't a result of an invisible alien ray machine that has been circling our Earth for millenia? Maybe the pod people are just giving you a conscience because its easier to take over people who hesitate to kill...softening us up, so to speak.

You don't know. You are making assertions and assumptions. At least there is some physical evidence, including comparisons to other animals, that love and "conscience" make sense from a biological standpoint.

[tomcalab]

59. Not likely

Like I said, God exists in the minds of billions of people. The fact that God is in a form that we can not measure does not mean that there is no evidence. The Old Testament is evidence, but for some reason people will not accept the written testimony accepted by millions of people over 6000 years, but they will accept the hypothesis of scientists who confuse the heck out of themselves, much less those who blindly believe them.

I'll go with the witness account.

[beam me up scottie]

60. "The Old Testament is evidence" ???

but for some reason people will not accept the written testimony accepted by millions of people over 6000 years, but they will accept the hypothesis of scientists who confuse the heck out of themselves, much less those who blindly believe them.

Forget my question about who created your creator, I'm done with this thread.


Since you'll obviously never read The Demon Haunted World, I'm going to reread it again twice.

Consider it my penance for thinking I could discuss logic with someone who believes science is a religion that requires blind faith. :banghead:

[tomcalab]

62. Excuse Me!

I majored in Mathematics and was a Land Surveyor for 30 years. I know about the theory of measurements and probability. I can read and understand statistics. I pride myself and have been quite successful in my career because of my excellent skills in deductive reasoning. I am not a touchy - feely guy.

I also have been quite active with the environment and have worked for the Forest Service, biologists, geologists, civil engineers, scientists, mathematicians, programmers, etc..
I have been working in the sciences all of my adult life.

No one has ever accused me of not being logical...except you.

How can I help you to understand?

[Random_Australian]

86. Well, she's gone, so I will add my $0.05,

You said that people blindy believe science.

This is a catch-phrase of those who think you need faith in science to believe it.

Which is illogical.

No-one has ever accused me of not eating my dinner.

Except my mother. (This is actually a fictional encounter)

Possibly because the action of not eating did not occur in others presence.

Naaaaah, it's because my dear old mother was wrong.

See the flaw?

[beam me up scottie]

98. Sorry, I don't believe you.

Anyone who claims to have "excellent skills in deductive reasoning" wouldn't use circular reasoning to "prove" the existence of their invisible deity.

Explain how a book consisting of two thousand year old hearsay is evidence of your god.

[Random_Australian]

84. HA! Bwahahahaha!

Scientists confuse the heck out of themselves do they?

Really?


....


Because, you know, I study science and it certainly does not 'confuse the heck' out of me.

And most of my friends are scientists.

And it does not 'confuse the heck' out of them.

I would like to see your explanation of this.

[tomcalab]

159. Palmdale Bulge

The Palmdale bulge was a bulge in the earth's crust that never really existed. Yet, geologists at the USGS were convinced they were watching it rise. They confused the heck out of themselves and a whole lot of other scientists.

They failed to consider all sources of error and once the "bulge" appeared, all they were concerned about was monitoring the "bulge". Finally, I forget how many years this went on, the numbers could not support practical thought and they finally went back, reconsidered their sources of error, and discovered that the "bulge" never, ever existed.

It can happen!

I was a Land Surveyor for 30 years, and I have worked with biologists, geologist, archaeologists, photogrammetrists, civil engineers, and many other types of scientists and professionals.

[salvorhardin]

161. That's actually an example of science working as intended

One of the biggest geodetic controversies since the 18th century British-French debate, whether the earth's shape was prolate or oblate, erupted in the late 1970's over the Palmdale Bulge. A well publicized event, newspapers are always interested in geologic mysteries.

One group contented that the historic leveling and relevelings showed conclusively that the plateau centered near Palmdale, CA had uplifted 10 to 16 inches. Another group eventually counter claimed that the differences were due to instrument and systematic errors resulting from observing practices and atmospheric effects, especially refraction.

Field tests made in the 1980's, showed that the latter conclusions were correct. However, not every one was convinced that was the case and some hold to their original views even at this date.
http://www.history.noaa.gov/stories_tales/geod2.html

That article goes on to describe how errors in the 1931 survey led to the erroneous conclusions about the Palmdale Bulge. But this is how science works. A discrepancy was noted between late 1970s survey data and data from 40 odd years prior. There was good reason for concern because similar effects were noted preceding the San Fernando earthquake of 1971 and the perceived Palmdale Bulge was over an especially active area of the San Andreas Fault. Competing theories were devised, and tested. Most scientists today recognize that the 1931 survey results were faulty and the Palmdale Bulge is an example of the self-correcting nature of science. Individual scientists may be wrong, and indeed often times individual scientists are very wrong as well as sometimes arrogant and conceited. The scientific method though doesn't care. It's just a process that helps us minimize our human frailties, and a way to find out when we're wrong.

The process might not be pretty or elegant but there's nothing confusing about it.

[Evoman]

162. I've made the same point several times

Science is as self-correcting as any process can be when done by humans. Humans make mistakes, errors in observation, etc....but thats the point. Mistakes or errors, if they don't jive when additional data is found, will be found and corrected. The piltdown man, the stem cell frauds...they were found out eventually. Whereas some people see them as a strike against science, I see in them the GOOD about science...frauds are found, errors are corrected, theories are updated or discarded.

And its essentially EVERYTHING I find wrong about religion. Religion has never been responsible for catching the mistakes science makes. Theists will point at the piltdown man and say...look, look..science made a mistake. Yes, but you didn't catch it, did you Reverend. YOUR INCAPABLE OF IT.

Mistakes have been made by the religious...the bible is chock full of mistakes. Diseases aren't caused by demons, people aren't made from clay, and there was no world wide flood. And it wasn't religion that caught those little mistakes, was it.....

[salvorhardin]

164. Exactly

It's the same sort of flawed reasoning we hear from believers in the paranormal all the time, especially when they're trotting out their bizarro world quantum babble ideas about communication at a distance. "Einstein proved Newton wrong, so how can you say we're not experiencing telepathy?" It's total bullshit because Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, he built upon Newton's ideas by showing that it is true only for noncurved space-time while hypothesizing a more generalized model. Einstein's model has been repeatedly tested and found to be about as close to "true" as we're ever going to get.

Einstein did however show that the idea of the luminiferous aether was not necessary to explain the propagation of light in a vacuum.

It's highly unlikely Einstein will ever be shown to be totally wrong, but future scientists may build yet again upon Einstein's work. Meanwhile, believers in the paranormal, in all the scores of years they have been making claims have not even once succeeded in at least demonstrating evidence for the existence of their claims. Instead they prefer to spin their untestable theories and if you should doubt something that's never even been shown to exist and is entirely untestable, well, then you're just a mean old skeptic giving off bad "vibes" (whatever those are, but don't ask the paranormalists because they won't know either).

[Evoman]

166. Did you know that once on DU

someone told me that I couldn't experience the paranormal because my skepticism affected quantum structure (or some other structure..who knows) and cancelled out other people psychic ability. I guess that skeptics and atheists are basically big walking vacuums that cause the light of god/telepathy/voodoo/healing/fairy magic to be sucked into non-existence. So, in essence, magic don't work 'round us cuz we donts' believes it none. We kill the mojo.

Now I assume that before I leave my aparment in the morning, people are flying, and god is talking to people and there are leperchauns and fairies, and angels and Jesi (plural for Jesus) just walking around. Then when I come around, everybody falls out of the sky, telepathy ceases to work, god runs into the shadows, and the Jesi take their crosses and go home. I am that powerful.

[tomcalab]

204. Bad Data is Bad Data is.......

I agree that people make blunders, and instruments can introduce natural and systematic errors.

But blunders do cause confusion, and natural and systematic errors affect conclusions.

In 30 years of processing data for a number of scientists and professionals I never had a single job come back. Mediocrity is for the masses, but why not admit it when bad data misleads and confuses people.

I never had to accept excuses for bad data because I knew exactly what I was supplying, what tests were performed on the data, and for what purposes the data was to be used.

Before I used any data I thoroughly investigated where it came from, what instruments were used to measure it, what "bench marks" were used and how the data was meant to be used.

to throw anything into the pot and then wait for the error's to show up is a shortcut made by many scientists. I know, I've seen them do it and I would have to explain to them why they could not use the data the way they wanted to.

Sometimes they would go ahead and use it, thinking of course that they knew more than I did, and guess what, they would confuse the next scientist after them and then it was up to me to clean up after their ignorance.

Just personal experience. Nothing directed at you or your response.

I appreciate challenges.

Cheers

[Random_Australian]

169. Harrumph. Now that is bordering on disengenous.

First you say "but they will accept the hypothesis of scientists who confuse the heck out of themselves, much less those who blindly believe them."

ie. assert that scientists confuse the heck out of themselves, and then you post this:

'Some people working in a place once made an error. This caused enough concern that they initially spent all their efforts on collecting the data. However, in time they realised and corrected for their mistake'

So, some people made an error. Wow. But you painted scientists as people who confused the heck out of themselves....

in other words, the source of confusion was themseleves.

In other words, in a discussion about evolution and biology, you were trying to tell me that scientists are so poorly mentally equipped to deal with such a thing that they could only confuse themselves.

See the flaw already?

[tomcalab]

205. Bad data is Bad Data is......

All I was saying was....

I agree that people make blunders, and instruments can introduce natural and systematic errors.

But blunders do cause confusion, and natural and systematic errors affect conclusions.

In 30 years of processing data for a number of scientists and professionals I never had a single job come back. Mediocrity is for the masses, but why not admit it when bad data misleads and confuses people.

I never had to accept excuses for bad data because I knew exactly what I was supplying, what tests were performed on the data, and for what purposes the data was to be used.

Before I used any data I thoroughly investigated where it came from, what instruments were used to measure it, what "bench marks" were used and how the data was meant to be used.

to throw anything into the pot and then wait for the error's to show up is a shortcut made by many scientists. I know, I've seen them do it and I would have to explain to them why they could not use the data the way they wanted to.

Sometimes they would go ahead and use it, thinking of course that they knew more than I did, and guess what, they would confuse the next scientist after them and then it was up to me to clean up after their ignorance.

Just personal experience. Nothing directed at you or your response.

I appreciate challenges.

Cheers

[Random_Australian]

220. Here is the core of what I was arguing against:

"The Old Testament is evidence, but for some reason people will not accept the written testimony accepted by millions of people over 6000 years, but they will accept the hypothesis of scientists who confuse the heck out of themselves"

Read this carefully. Perhaps it was bad choice of words by you, but it implies:

1) Those who don't accept the OT look to science;

2) And more importantly, "hypothesis of scientists who confuse the heck out of themselves", given that is was a discussion about evolution and biology, 'hypothesis' is not the right word, and what's more it implies scientists are confused.

You then posted the palmdale bulge as proof of this - but really, in science there are just the edges that you find bad data. Scientists are confused about very little, in fact I put it to you that when it comes to how the world works there is no group less confused.

What's more, saying scientists confuse the heck out of themselves on a board with many of us science types on it is at best severely impolite - do I post that religious people confuse the heck out of themselves and are followed blindly? Like no-one ever made a choice about how they would think when they subscribed to a religion.

[tomcalab]

252. Clarification

I think I could have done a better job of explaining myself. There have been so many responses, that I do not have the time to ponder what I've said to determine how others might be mislead by my choice of words. Thank you for asking for clarity.

First let me say that I have a tendency to use all inclusive words like "people", to mean "some people", and I can understand how this impedes my ability to convey my opinions accurately. I should have said "some people will not accept the written testimony", but I assumed that the reader knew that I was not implying it to be all inclusive. I understand your concern.

I'm thinking that the word "hypothesis" was the right word for me.

hypothesis;
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

The proposition supplied by Darwin that we evolved from apes has been assumed because scientists can not use God in their demonstration of how we came to be in existence. I respect this, but that does not change the fact that this assumption is limiting science to not consider the mystery of things yet to be uncovered.

It goes both ways, Science without religion is crippled, just like religion without science is blind.

The Palmdale Bulge was the execution of science to explain our world. People made errors, plain and simple. How do you think property values were affected when word got out that there was a bulge in the neighborhood? Science misled people, and themselves with their own self-admitted errors. Much the same way as Darwin's prejudice against women and minorities was introduced into his theory.

I am sorry if my comment offended you I did not intend it to. I am a "science type" and have first hand experience of scientists not being able to see the forest for the trees. And, I could agree that "some" religious people also confuse the heck out of themselves and follow blindly?

Cheers

[Random_Australian]

278. Here is why for some words you ought not to rely on a dictionary.

Hypothesis is the wrong word, not because evolution is a set of propositions, but the non-contradiction and evaluation of evidence means that it is actually a theory.

And when people say "it's just a theory" remember that there are two meanings of the word - in common speech, it is an idea or model as to what is going on.

When used formally, it speaks a lot about the evidence and predictive power of the concepts in use, not just their ability to convey information.

"The proposition supplied by Darwin that we evolved from apes has been assumed because scientists can not use God in their demonstration of how we came to be in existence"

Nope - wrong, I'm afraid. Scientists thought through Darwin's ideas, looked at the evidence, and saw a complete pathway without the need for the special type of interaction from God that you are talking about. God's pretty much implicit but not relevant - for instance, the exact reason a block responds to a push may be God doing it, but it is not necessary.

And...

... oh, I see you've left. Oh well, so long!

[tomcalab]

308. I Aced Geometry.

Thank you for the information. I appreciate all of your time and effort.

Hypothesis is the wrong word, not because evolution is a set of propositions, but the non-contradiction and evaluation of evidence means that it is actually a theory."

Response: I agree that evolution is a theory. A theory that can not and should not include God.

And when people say "it's just a theory" remember that there are two meanings of the word - in common speech, it is an idea or model as to what is going on.

Response: I am a mathematics major. So, yes I did take Geometry.

When used formally, it speaks a lot about the evidence and predictive power of the concepts in use, not just their ability to convey information.

Response: Yes, this is true.

"The proposition supplied by Darwin that we evolved from apes has been assumed because scientists can not use God in their demonstration of how we came to be in existence"

Response: I understand their dilemma

Nope - wrong, I'm afraid. Scientists thought through Darwin's ideas, looked at the evidence, and saw a complete pathway without the need for the special type of interaction from God that you are talking about. God's pretty much implicit but not relevant - for instance, the exact reason a block responds to a push may be God doing it, but it is not necessary.

Response: I have no problem with the idea of God's creations evolving, and I am very interested in seeing how well science will coincide with Genesis.

And...

... oh, I see you've left. Oh well, so long!

Response: I'm sorry, but I have very little experience with forums. I did not realize one could monitor who they were responding to in an attempt to form a back and forth communication.

[Random_Australian]

313. Ah, so you weren't leaving!

You said in another post that some quotes were "closing remarks" so I thought you had left.

Nope, I'm not monitoring you.

And as for "Response: I have no problem with the idea of God's creations evolving, and I am very interested in seeing how well science will coincide with Genesis"

I would say almost the same - I am interested in how well Genesis will coincide with science... though perhaps for other reasons than you. :)

[Zhade]

51. "Many people talk to God for hours every day."

That's just another unsupported assertion. Who? How many? Where? Are they really talking to god? Gods? Which one? Which ones? How would we know? How would THEY know? What if they're talking to themselves? Etc.

As far as conscience goes - I have one, created by the interplay in my cerebral cortex between my memories, my emotions, and the blending of the two into a synthesis to achieve an ideal I wish to live up to (in this case, do good for its own sake, because it makes me happy to help and treat others kindly as fellow human beings).

No need for a god there. Doesn't enter the picture. Can't, in fact; after multiple attempts, it became clear I could not force myself to believe in things for which there is no evidence outside the believer's mind or words.

[tomcalab]

63. No it's not.

Jews pray for three hours a day. If they are not talking to God, who are they talking to?

Millions of eye witnesses account of the existence of God has not been challenged by their ancestors for almost 600 years. Scientists change there minds every decade or so and can't agree amongst themselves on much at all when it comes to how or why we exist.

There is no way to measure conscience so how was it defined. Your experience with your conscience is not consistant with mine, nor does it explain why we have one in the first place.

One thing I can say for sure. When you need God, that's when you discover him. That will be all the proof you need.

What do you say to a Christian, a Jew, and an Atheist.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Good Luck.

May luck be with you.

[cyborg_jim]

90. HAIL ZEUS.

Jews pray for three hours a day. If they are not talking to God, who are they talking to?

And you PRIDE yourself on logic?

Erm, how about they aren't talking to shit?

Millions of eye witnesses account of the existence of God has not been challenged by their ancestors for almost 600 years.

What 'Millions of eye witnesses account's would these be then?

Scientists change there minds every decade or so and can't agree amongst themselves on much at all when it comes to how or why we exist.

I see.

So as an adult scientist you understand that science is just plain stupid because if it doesn't get it right the first time it should just ignore that fact and blindly go along with that first assertion anyway - defened it throughout time and space, drum it into the heads of little ones and kill those who disagree.

Yes, that sounds familiar.

Not very scientific though.

I think this kind of crap is why biologists despair when mathematicians start talking about evolution and design.

One thing I can say for sure. When you need God, that's when you discover him. That will be all the proof you need.

At that point I would have to disown myself. No good scientist should be unaware of his or her own personal bias and inability to correctly judge own's perceptions or conclusions especially in an emotional situation. It is, or should be, the zeroth law of science, "Scientist, distrust thy self."

[Goblinmonger]

143. When I was in Seattle this summer

I saw a guy on a corner having an argument and then a karate fight with someone that was not there. About 5 minutes later, I saw a similar "exchange" near the Stalin statue. Clearly there is an invisible being going around Seattle having karate fights with guys on street corners because if there isn't, who were these guys fighting with?

[greyl]

45. A nine legged Zebra with plaid spots exists in my mind.

An island of almond fudge in the middle of Lake Erie, is in my mind.
The existence of a delusion in someones mind, or even in many peoples minds, has zero bearing on existence outside of the mind.

[tomcalab]

66. You're Right

So what do we do with billions of delusional people? Or the eyewitness accounts of God written in the Old Testement and surpported by millions of Jews for over 6000 years.... without exception.

[greyl]

69. We minimize the damage done by the delusions,

and make knowledge available that can keep the delusions from causing harm in the future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. "Eyewitness accounts"?

That's a different Old Testament to the one in the Christian Bible, then. The OT commonly used was largely written around the 7th century BC, and consists of myths, legends and histories, and prophetic criticism of the behaviour of the Israelites of that time. There are some later additions to it. It's no more "eyewitness accounts" than the considerably older Hindu holy books.

[tomcalab]

122. Yes.."Eyewitness accounts"

If there was anything misreported in the Bible, then I am sure there would be multiple factions within the Jewish religion. Where are they? Evidence is mounting on the historical accuracy of the Old Testement.

[cyborg_jim]

124. Hmm

Because Jews, like Christians, are well known for reporting factual things that work aginst their religion. Oh and Jews are all in agreement - just like Christians.

[muriel_volestrangler]

132. There have been many factions in Judaism

For instance, at the time of Jesus, there were the Pharisees, Saduceees and Essenes, who disagreed on such fundamental things as whether there was an afterlife, and whether there was an oral law as well as the Old Testament. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html

The Old Testament very rarely claims to be 'eyewitness accounts' of God - it's written as history. It was pulled together from different oral traditions, probably under the pressure of the conquest of Israel and Judah around the 7th century BC, and the subsequent exile and return. See, for instance, http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html . The prophetic books, which have better claims to be either written by the prophets they're named after, or their immediate followers (though Isaiah probably has multiple authors, and Daniel was written long after its events) do describe events that fit with the archaeological evidence, and that from the surrounding countries. But the evidence that supports the story much before 800 BC is very thin - some archaeologists doubt that David and Solomon had any kind of significant kingdom at all, or may not even have existed. No archaeologist has found any evidence for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, or the events in Genesis.

[tomcalab]

199. Torah

Three branches of Judaism at the time of Jesus, six today, but they use the same book.

Do you now that the Torah (the first 5 books) was written law from the time of Moses?

Do you know about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Archy's have found proof of the existence in remains and rubble. Try Wikipedia.

You should start a thread on this, it's a little too much off tangent for me right now.

I'm sorry, but I have a lot of responses unanswered. If I find time I'll get back.

Thanks for your link and for you response.

Cheers

[muriel_volestrangler]

218. No, it wasn't written from the time of Moses

as the link I gave explained. On subjects like this, that people feel strongly about, Wikipedia isn't always reliable. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from well after the return from the Babylonian Exile, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say about them. They do, however, show there has been significant disagreement inside Judaism, since they include a lot of religious material that isn't found in other branches.

The Israeli government has a page on the archaeology from the time of David; the best evidence is a king being described as being from the 'House of David', about a century after the bible places him. But there's no archaelogical evidence of a significant kingdom based in Jerusalem at the time - the buildings you would expect to be associated with a successful king as Solomon is described has never been found. And that source also says:

There are still many differing opinions regarding the origin of the Bible, when it was written, and under what conditions; but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century bce, some three centuries after David's time. (The earliest actual material in our possession, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to the second century bce at the earliest).

[tomcalab]

234. Why Not?

Thank You for responding.

I was really rushed with my last response because there were so many responses by others that I was trying to catch up on. I am not the expert,in my house, on the subject you brought up, but my wife is. I wanted to respond to you, so I quickly asked my wife some questions about your main talking points. The answers I gave are lacking, and I'm glad you responded back.

The subject you brought up is a very important one. I really have no emotional ties to it because I believe that as time goes by, man will uncover the evidence to support the Bible. My wife informs me that many doubts about the Bible have been resolved by archaeologists findings, and I really appreciate all they have done.

I appreciate the honesty in your responses and you have really made me realize that I need to search out for reliable and new evidence to support many of my own concerns about the authenticity of all the writings found in the King James Bible. Thank you for the great link and for the other information contained in your response. I really do appreciate it!

For me, the history of the Bible is not a major issue that would stop me from reading it, and of course trying to understand the sometimes cryptic poetry. And, I see no reason to question God's moral laws contained within. Was the Bible divinely inspired? Considering the parts I understand, my experience would tell me that no human who ever lived could write with such consistency, connectivity, wisdom, or depth of moral conviction. The parts I know are amazing and that is probably why it is, and will always be, the world's best seller.

God affects me everyday, whether I read the Bible or not. Certain inalienable truths exist, the Bible supports them, and the lack of archaeological evidence is not going to change that. Unless, that is, you think man's word makes much more sense than God's word. From my 53 years experience, I'll choose the parts of the Bible I understand over the ever changing social experiments that people who have never tried to understand the Bible by reading it themselves come up with.

That said, let me address some of my concerns about the information you pasted into your response.

"but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century bce"

With the information I have, I agree with this statement. It is truly fair to say that the "assembling and editing" began in the seventh century. In fact it is still going on. I have more than 30 different versions that have been assembled and edited. I prefer the King James version (red letter) with the Apocrypha. The statement, in no way say the individual books were written in the seventh century. And it is logical that if "editing" began in the seventh century that there must have been something to edit that preceded it. Please note, that there is the conjunction "and" between "assembling" and "editing".

Carbon dating has mislead and confused many scientists. I'm sure the basis of it is theoretically sound but from experience, I know that mistakes and mis perceptions are involved in anything that is measured. There are three types of error: blunders, systematic, and natural. Blunders and systematic errors come from humans and the instruments they use. Natural error comes from nature and it has a tendency to cancel itself out. Once blunders and systematic errors are removed, the residuals of each individual measurement from the mean need to be looked at and quantized by how they deviate from the mean and each other. The results are a indicator of how well your data compares with itself, but it in no way is an indicator of systematic error within the instruments used to measure or the mistakes or oversights a human can make.

I have worked with numbers too long to believe any number handed to me. Unless I get a breakdown of how that number was produced, as far as I'm concerned, it has error in it and nobody knows how much. Am I saying scientists make mistakes, and mislead people?...yes, I am. On purpose?.....no, I am not.

carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin has varied greatly because the first sample was taken from a corner. A corner where human hands were touching it. Guess what? their hands contaminated the sample and affected the initial dating. With new dating from a sample taken from an area not likely to be touched by humans, the results put the date of the cloth in the first century. Do I trust one number over the other. No, not until they give me at least a 95% probability error for the date.

Thanks again for your input...good day.

[Finder]

235. This really needs its own thread...

as do other issues brought up in this thread.

Do you mind if I start one on Biblical Archaeology?

[tomcalab]

237. I Agree

Yes please do....and thanks for asking.

[tomcalab]

236. By the Way....

It is a very important tenet of Islam that the Jewish books of the Bible are all a lie and a corruption of man. Since Islam is the self-professed enemy of Judaism, I would be very cautious about accepting a belief that supports them in the destruction of the historical Jewish roots.

[muriel_volestrangler]

241. I'm not quite sure why you're bringing up Islam

It doesn't say the OT is "all a lie", and neither is it the "self-professed enemy of Judaism". It disagrees with the OT on many points, but also believes some of the basic story - see, for instance, The Muslim story of Moses; and it regards Judaism as people who did get sent prophets from the same god as Islam follows (ie the 'true' God), but have followed their message imperfectly (and they have a similar view of Christianity). But Islam has been able to co-exist with Judaism in many periods - the present antipathy between many followers of the religions is mainly due to the conflict for land starting in the 20th century.

This isn't a question of 'destroying historical Jewish roots'; it's just a discussion of what in the Bible actually fits with archaeological evidence, and what is national legend. People do the same with other cultures; for instance, Rome claimed a definite founding date of 753 BC (and based its dates on that year), with a story involving feuding brothers that were the sons of a god, the kidnapping of women from neighbouring tribes, kings that were then overthrown, and so on. This was written down later. Archaeologists can look at what they find in the area and decide what in the story makes sense and has support, what might contain a grain of truth, and what is obviously made up, either as a fable with a message, or as a myth to encourage national pride. In general, the older the story, the less evidence there is for it, in all cultures.

[ironbark]

247. Thank you Muriel......

....for setting the record straight-

“It doesn't say the OT is "all a lie", and neither is it the "self-professed enemy of Judaism".

Your post was a refreshing change from and rebuttal of the misinformation that often gets pumped out.

As I understand it the Haddiths of Islam record the *very first* question Mohammed put to his countrymen-
“Why did you not believe in Jesus and the Prophets”?

Came the reply- “Our fathers did not believe, therefore we did not believe”

Mohammed then told them- “In this you have greatly erred and have been
greatly led astray”.

This Haddith places, as *central foundation*, the Islamic recognition of Judaism and Christianity as legitimate, related and respected as ‘People of The Book’.

I enjoyed your post.
Thanks again.

[Goblinmonger]

145. You do know about the reformation, right?

THere was this whole protestant thing, guy nailing a paper to a door, lots of christian sects developing as a result. Kinda puts a dent in your argument.

[tomcalab]

200. Martin Luther

I'm not talking about Christianity.

[Evoman]

35. OMG...HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO DUMB!

You have completely convinced me. I don't need evidence....forget that shit. Your conscience is all I need. My conscience, instinct and brain tell me that there is no bloody fucking way that a god exists. All this time I've been so deluded believing my limited brain, with its rational need for evidence...when all this time the answer was in your brain and the brains of all the true believers!

Give me a second to wipe the egg of my ASHAMED face!

[tomcalab]

37. I'm Sorry

I'm sorry my post upset you so. But I am glad you took the time to respond.

Thank you

[Evoman]

48. Upset me? HHHELLL NO!

You proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that god truly does exist. You've saved my dirty, unworthy soul.

But seriously...I've heard your argument before, and it is very unconvincing. I don't get upset, however, at most postings. The point of this forum is debate and discussion, and I don't want to discourage you from expressing your opinions on this forum.

On edit: I just noticed your name is Tomcalab...lol..I actually read it as Tomcat at first.

[tomcalab]

61. Ditto

I'm not doing this to save anyone. Thank you for considering "my argument" enough to respond. I appreciate your input and do not feel discouraged. As far as I can tell, there is no right or wrong when it comes to the existence of God, but there is a right or wrong in how we conduct ouselves. On that I'm sure believers and non can agree.

Here's what I know from experience. God is a spirit whose fruit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance for the minds that find him inside thenselves. Faith in God brings hope. When people are looking for hope, they usually find God. He's there......just waiting to be discovered.

Peace be with you.

[A HERETIC I AM]

80. It is interesting that you repeatedly refer to the OT and yet say god is

"a spirit whose fruit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance for the minds that find him inside themselves."

Regardless of your age and occupational history, i put it to you that the god of the OT is rarely if ever ANY of those things. The god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, when looked at with even the SLIGHTEST bit of skepticism, is little more than a petulant, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, slavery enabling, racist, baby killing, child raping, incompetent Hebrew desert war god. A god that creates knowing full well that the creation will displease him and he will have to destroy it and then later try another way of saving his creations from themselves because he got it so wrong in the first place is hardly the resume' of a supreme being worthy of praise by anyone with the slightest critical thinking skills.

There have been scores of war gods through history.

The god of the bible was just created with a better marketing plan.

[tomcalab]

136. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately, those who see him that way don't like what they have either been told about God, or they did not understand why God did something. The Old Testament is a history book of the relationship of God and a group of people. That's all.

Why would a father discipline his children? Because he loves them. Does a child enjoy being disciplined? No. then why does a father do it. He knows what is best for the child because he loves him.

God is perfect love.

But there are those who distort the truth on purpose. It really is too bad when this happens. All I can say is that whatever you choose to believe, make sure you seek out at least three completely independent sources and then find people with whom you can work with to sort out all of the confusion that has been introduced by false teachers.

I wish you well.....and peace.

[Goblinmonger]

146. Surely you can see the circular nature

of this post since you declare yourself someone schooled in logic.

You use as proof of god really existing that people find him. And since BELIEVING in god brings hope, those that are looking for hope find god. Classic example of begging the question; you use a claim to prove the same claim.

I would argue from the beginning that belief in god has NOTHING to do with rationality. I have argued that in a very long thread on this forum. Faith is inherently irrational. But you are the one claiming rationality/logic as your method for proving god, though I see very little to none of that. I have no problem with you having faith in god (though I don't think you are correct) but I do have a problem with claims that that faith is rational.

[tomcalab]

207. Cause and Effect Logic

Let me know what you think of this.........cheers.



Given; Cause=Creator, and Effect=Existing atoms

And...
A=Atheist B=Believer

Question #1. Is the cause necessary and sufficient?

Is a creator necessary for atoms to exist? A=No, B=Yes

Is it sufficient to say that a creator made atoms because they exist? A=No B=Yes

Question #2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Is it possible that a creator can make atoms? A=No B=Yes

Question #3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

Could some other cause stop atoms from existing? A=No B=Yes

Summary:

1)Atoms exist because?
Atheists say the effect is sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.
Believers say the effect is not sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.

2)Can atoms be created?
Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator. Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Athism is a religion. See Footnote (a) below.

Believers say a creator is capable of creating atoms.

3)Could something have stopped atoms from existing?

To be fair, Atheists are mixed on this, but most I've heard are saying: I am because I am, inevitable pathways, algorhythus, inherant properties of matter. So my guess is that they would say nothing could stop atoms from existing because they exist.
Believers say atoms do not have to exist because they were created.

Footnotes:
a)
Atheist: "I am because I am"

Beleiver: Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

Most Aetheists I've heard are also saying that the universe is infinite. It's really hard for me to imagine that. Almost as hard as it is for an Atheist to beleive in spirits.

However...

Most beleivers I've heard say that the universe is finite, and there is something beyond called heaven.

[Random_Australian]

225. Here is what I think of this:

"Question #2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Is it possible that a creator can make atoms? A=No B=Yes"

Wrong - a creator could indeed make atoms if She wanted. Just no evidence or even need of Her to do so with the universe we see.

"Question #3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

Could some other cause stop atoms from existing? A=No B=Yes "

Of course something could stop the atoms from existing.

"1)Atoms exist because?
Atheists say the effect is sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary."

Wrong - it's not the effect of atoms existing that came into the argument.

"2)Can atoms be created?
Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator. Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Athism is a religion. See Footnote (a) below."

I saw your footnote. I am really, really not impressed.

Atheism is no religion - we base our views on evidence alone. If you want to challenge me on that, post another post seperate to your reply to this, and I'll show you why the evidence leads me to believe what I do.

Calling atheism a religion is considered an insult - and for good reason. Think that I just want to believe ( the things I believe), do you? As in, it takes faith to be an atheist. If you think that is the case, bring it. You'll learn a lot about atheism but I'm not taking the time to do it without asking.

"To be fair, Atheists are mixed on this, but most I've heard are saying: I am because I am, inevitable pathways, algorhythus, inherant properties of matter. So my guess is that they would say nothing could stop atoms from existing because they exist. "

Actually, atoms can stop existing. All they have to do is disobey the classical laws of physics, which happens on occasion.

"Footnotes:
a)
Atheist: "I am because I am""

Correction - Atheist: "I am" (Or if you really want to be precise, "I think, therefore I am"


As as my own footnote, we don't know whether or not the universe is infinite - space is too flat for us to work it out easily. It all comes down to the overall curvature of space.

[cyborg_jim]

85. No.

Answer.....Law enforcement.

Haha, very funny. But seriously, you want to trust law enforcement as implementing the law as writ?

That's about as reliable as:

Answer....My conscience.

What the hell makes YOUR conscience so special eh?

I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).

All hail mighty Zeus!

That still doesn't mean they don't exist.

Should we spend a great deal of time debating the will of things that cannot be shown to exist? Of all the possible existent things we cannot show exist what the hell makes whatever your concept of god is special?

Is this really what we think of those who believe in God?

I've seen it with my own eyes. People are just f-ing dumb on the whole. They can't help it, but still, it's there. Some people just cannot reason at all.

In a million years or so will we humans evolve into a superior creature that has no genetic tendency to believe in God.

You have no idea what Evolution is (or at least are only familiar with the Star Trek version of it).

Until then, God exists in the minds of billions of people

So? Is that supposed to be impressive? What makes a god special from any other fantasy creature?

What the hell is your point? Is that your topic title? Is this standard argument fare supposed to persuade non-believers to believe in 'god'? Which one? Why is that god better than the other proposed gods? What makes it more real? Come on now, you're not even really trying.

[tomcalab]

255. Belated Response

I'm trying to respond to everyone. I apologize for taking so long to address your input.

I've pasted your response (inflamatory words censored) below and have inserted my response as "Response:"

Let's continue...............

-------------------------------------------------------------------


What the h--l makes YOUR conscience so special eh?

Response: I read the Bible to find out how he wants me to live. I'm not saying I'm "special", I'm saying it works for me. I have a feeling of peace about the way things work in my life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).


All hail mighty Zeus!


That still doesn't mean they don't exist.


Should we spend a great deal of time debating the will of things that cannot be shown to exist?

Response: Science without religion is crippled, as religion without science is blind.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of all the possible existent things we cannot show exist what the h--l makes whatever your concept of god is special?

I have never said that my concept of God is unique. I'm just saying that I have a conscience that is governed by him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this really what we think of those who believe in God?


I've seen it with my own eyes. People are just f-ing dumb on the whole. They can't help it, but still, it's there. Some people just cannot reason at all.

Response: If you ask me to prove my beliefs, I can't. I know them to be true but I could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.

------------------------------------------

In a million years or so will we humans evolve into a superior creature that has no genetic tendency to believe in God.


You have no idea what Evolution is (or at least are only familiar with the Star Trek version of it).

Response: I was asking the question, and left out the question mark, I apologize.

-------------------------------------------------

Until then, God exists in the minds of billions of people


So? Is that supposed to be impressive? What makes a god special from any other fantasy creature?


Response: God governs our sense of right and wrong. A mermaid does not.

-----------------------------

What the h--l is your point? Is that your topic title? Is this standard argument fare supposed to persuade non-believers to believe in 'god'? Which one? Why is that god better than the other proposed gods? What makes it more real? Come on now, you're not even really trying.

Response:
Is that your topic title?

The topic is the title, God exists in the minds of those who believe.
-----
What's my point? I was responding to a thread title, "There is no God (And you know it)", that's all.
-------
Is this standard argument fare supposed to persuade non-believers to believe in 'god'?
No.
-----
Which one?
I am not trying to convert anyone.
------
Why is that god better than the other proposed gods?
You can judge a god by his/her fruits.
------
What makes it more real?
History
--------

I hope I have answered your questions.

Good day.........

[cyborg_jim]

257. Timely response

I read the Bible to find out how he wants me to live. I'm not saying I'm "special", I'm saying it works for me. I have a feeling of peace about the way things work in my life.

That's pure arrogance - to assume the divine wants anything to do with something as meaningless as pathetic as you or I. Again I must ask - what does any god want with an ape that is too arrogant for its own good?

Science without religion is crippled, as religion without science is blind.

Rubbish. What good has relgion done? What progress has blind dogma achieved for the human race? Science exists unto itself - it appeals to the authourity of the universe for questions about the universe which makes it ultimately superior to any self-professed desire to ashere to a human created deity.

I'm just saying that I have a conscience that is governed by him.

You are saying nothing in other words. I say your conscience is governed by faeries, what can you argue against that?

If you ask me to prove my beliefs, I can't. I know them to be true but I could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.

Consider this rationally - you really think a bunch of goat herders have been touched by the divine? This in the knowledge that the universe is really, REALLY massive, humans have been around for a really short space of time and there is a definate propensity for humans to make up stuff that just isn't true? Come on now man, try to take a step back and analyse this with the scientist mind you're supposed to possess. Do you really, REALLY think that a god would concenrate its great message upon a tiny subsection of life living in a tiny subsection of a populous of a species? Hello? I mean really.

What good has ever come from the mentally unstable getting on a box and spouting whatever nonsense comes to mind?

God governs our sense of right and wrong. A mermaid does not.

Which god? Which mermaid? How do you know it doesn't? Have you been given special knowledge about fictional beings the rest of us hasn't?

The great thing about fictional beings is that their attributes are so flexible.

The topic is the title, God exists in the minds of those who believe.

Yahweh, that is YAHWEH, not 'God'. There are many gods, many of which you would assert are ludicrous or pagan, yet exist as much in the minds of those who believe in them as yours does.

You can judge a god by his/her fruits.

Then judging your god by its holy book I find it a most reprehensible character.

History

Delusional reasoing. Try again - history is not on your side.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

91. You can't see love, either, but it exists

[greyl]

93. There's plenty of evidence for love.

Have you ever witnessed an atheist saying they don't believe in God because they can't see God with their eyes? Visibility isn't a necessary requirement for existence.

Love May Be A Lateralized Brain Function, Like Speech; Links Seen To Stalking, Suicide, Clinical Depression, Even Autism

BETHESDA, Md. (May 31, 2005) -- You just can't tell where you might find love these days. A team led by a neuroscientist, an anthropologist and a social psychologist found love-related neurophysiological systems inside a magnetic resonance imaging machine. They detected quantifiable love responses in the brains of 17 young men and women who each described themselves as being newly and madly in love.
_______________________________

fMRI confirms major predictions, yields "remarkable implications"; autism link

Aron reported that, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other measurements, he and his colleagues found support for their two major predictions: (1) early stage, intense romantic love is associated with subcortical reward regions rich with dopamine; and (2) romantic love engages brain systems associated with motivation to acquire a reward.

Brown explains some of these findings, commenting that "when our participants looked at a photo of his/her beloved, specific activation occurred in the right ventral tegmental area (VTA) and dorsal caudate body. These regions were significant compared to two control conditions, providing strong evidence that these brain areas, which are associated with the motivation to win rewards, are central to the experience of being in love."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050607031344.htm

[TallahasseeGrannie]

95. Very interesting approach

and yes, I sure have had atheists tell me they don't believe what they can't physically discern.

Evidence of love is everywhere if we choose to see it. In my opinion, evidence of a Higher Power is also everywhere if we choose to see it. It all depends on one's perspective. And if we all had the same persepctive life would indeed be boring!

[greyl]

96. "Physically discern" is quite a bit more inclusive than "see".

Nevertheless, physical discernment isn't fully inclusive. I'd have to ask that atheist if they doubt rational truths arrived at using mathematics.
Love is an emotion and we can detect it physically, even though the object of love may be totally imaginary. When you say we can see love everywhere if we choose to see it, I suppose you mean human love expressed through actions? How do you propose we argue with supporters of abortion clinic bombings or murders in the name of a jihad who claim to be "correct" when they say they see love in those acts? Suppose they tell us that our perspective is wrong, and that we can't see theirs because we lack their faith in God.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

97. Good point

Is love only love if it is harmless? Or if I kill my pehodphile neighbor to protect my son, is that love? Hmmm.

Now, personally, a mathmatical equation proves nothing to me because I don't understand it. I take it on trust. Should non-believers then take believers' personal experiences on trust? I'd vote no. I think if "it" hasn't happened to you, there is a reason. I don't know what it is, however. I do think we need balance of beliefs in order to thrive as a civilized people. Right now we are out of balance, wouldn't you say?

[ironbark]

233. Inadequate premice-

"Love is an emotion and we can detect it physically...."

Nope...not necessarily...it may be just an emotion to some...but that is by no means an adequate definition.

Dictionaries tend to define love as deep affection or fondness.
Philosophers and Theologians tend to define love as acting intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being.

Love has also been defined as "A preparedness to *do* for others...in the absense of or even in spite of a prevailing emotion".

There are all 'types' and definitions of love-

•Agape - the term was used by the early Christians (Greek to be specific, as the word is of Greek origin) to refer to an unconditional acceptance, favour and affinity toward a person. It is a love that is based on a decision instead of a feeling.
•Courtly love – a late medieval conventionalized code prescribing certain conduct and emotions for ladies and their lovers
•Cupboard love - a false or exaggerated affection shown in return for some kind of material gain
•Erotic love (eros) – Sexual attraction or desire toward a person
•Familial love – affection brokered through kinship connections, intertwined with concepts of attachment and bonding
•Free love – sexual relations according to choice and unrestricted by marriage
•Philia - used in the New Testament, philia is a sentimental or conditional love. i.e. "I love you, because..."
•Platonic love – a close relationship in which sexual desire is non-existent or has been suppressed or sublimated
•Puppy love – romantic affection that is not "mature" or not "true." The term is often used with negative connotations, insinuating that love between youngsters is less genuine or valuable
•Religious love – devotion to one's deity or theology
•Romantic love – affection characterized by a mix of emotional intimacy and sexual desire
•True love – love without condition, motive or attachment. Loving someone just because they are themselves, not their actions or beliefs in particular. Also referred to as unconditional love.
•Unrequited love – affection and desire not reciprocated or returned
•Lust-love - affection characterized by lust. i.e. The desire to satisfy or gratify oneself.
•Instantaneous love - Love that occours the instant that one person comes in contact with another and feels a deep connection or attraction to the other. Also known as "love at first sight" and refered to commonly in many fairy tales and folk lore and literature.
•Sacrificial love - the act of sacrificing one's life, or something of great importance, solely on the basis of love.

[ironbark]

232. newly and madly in love....

is a comparatively recent ‘social construct’ called ‘Romantic Love’.

Most of humanity for most of history would not recognise what we culturally accept and project as ‘romantic love’……indeed, most would consider it some form of “new madness”.

Nor is romantic love the best, most accurate or deepest definition of what love
can be. Romantic love has about as much depth, meaning and significance to ‘sacrificial love’ as the image of a snowy bearded old man on a cloud has to God.
Both are shallow, narrow and inadequate conceptions and depictions.

The issue of MRI evidence of love was covered extensively in the ‘Do Athiests Believe in Love’ thread…..There is no ‘proof’ of ‘love’….there is no ‘proof’ of ‘God’….There is much ‘evidence’ for both that may or may not persuade one to believe in either, neither, one or other.

[trotsky]

92. God DOES exist in the minds of billions of people.

He just doesn't exist anywhere else, is all.

It would be nice if this forum could actually feature some new and compelling reasons to believe in gods instead of the same old rehashed Josh McDowell-type nonsense.

[tomcalab]

142. Thanks for the Info

So far this thread has 141 posts. Obviously there are others who are interested in this thread. I can't imagine they are doing this all for me. Either way, I am most grateful for all of the responses.

Thanks for mentioning Josh McDowell. I have never heard of him before. I will do a search. right now I can't keep up with all of the responses I'm getting.

Thanks again.....cheers

[hunter]

100. I'm posting a naughty picture, for no particular reason.

[Finder]

106. Gotta love those bonobos...n/t

[tomcalab]

120. lol - Family Photo?

Sorry couldn't resist.

[moobu2]

125. They're actually a very close relative, so yes

[varkam]

135. Touche. eom

[tomcalab]

138. Family reunions must drive you bananas! - lol

[Ron Green]

154. Thanks for the work, energy and good attitude you've put into this thread.

You've been hit with many of the same arguments that have swirled around this forum for a while, and I appreciate the way you've received them. I happen to agree with your OP, and would add that the extent to which we embrace ONLY logic to the exclusion of spirit cuts us off from an important part of our understanding and our being. I also suggest that inquisitive and aware people often spend a goodly period of their lives rejecting whatever spiritual or doctrinal traditions to which they may have been exposed early on, but as the Hero must return home so will the successful person return to Spirit, knowing it for the first time.

Welcome to DU.

[tomcalab]

163. - - - A Glimpse into a Believer's World - - -

This has been a challenge for me. But, God sent me here for some reason.

On the morning I first came to this forum, as I was dreaming and just starting to become aware of my thoughts, my head became filled with the first part of this OP, a subject that I have not even thought of for weeks, maybe months.

When I got up, I immediately went to my computer, decided to go to DU instead of my usual routine, and went immediately to the Religion section and saw the thread "There is No God (And You Know It) - Sam Harris". So I began my thread "There is a God (believe it) and typed in the thoughts that had filled my head while I was waking. My post and the other post are 34 minutes apart from each other.

Proof of God? Not for others, but this kinda stuff keeps happening to me and I don't know why? I am a real logical guy and this kinda stuff happening to me has rocked my world. I am 53 years old and nothing like this has happened with this frequency until I made a conscious effort to develop a relationship with God (4 years ago).

Now, when I turn to God , complex and perplexing questions are quickly answered with a clarity that warrants no debate. Proof of God? Not to others.

The main thing I have noticed is peace. Proof of God? Who cares it works!

This has been a tough crowd and many times I have had to turn inward. Thank you for complimenting me on how I have conducted myself. I could not have done it without God's help, but I really, really wanted to reach out and sow a seed or two.

Your response was so eloquent, and uncanny in how it described my spiritual journey. I was brought up Methodist (never understood it as a child), became agnostic from ages 17 to 49 which was 4 years ago when I decided to reach out to God.

Thank you for you response, and peace be with you.

[salvorhardin]

167. "this kinda stuff keeps happening to me and I don't know why?"

Elevated levels of dopamine in the brain?
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/09/21/blast_from_the_past_paranormal_beliefs_linked_to_brain_chemistry

[tomcalab]

178. Nope on the Dope

Thank you for the link.

I was involved in a court case involving whistle-blowing. I was the whistle-blower for corruption in a government agency. They of course brought up the "mental illness" card..so I voluntarily submitted myself to a number of tests and psychiatrists.

Normal.....yeah....I know...the defense didn't like it either. I settled out of court for 6 figures.

[salvorhardin]

182. I wasn't implying that you were mentally ill

I don't do that and you will see me calling people out on that sort of BS at DU.

I was merely pointing out an alternative, naturalistic explanation for your experiences since (unless I was misreading your words) you seemed to be saying that you keep finding significant patterns of events in your life that you had not previously noted. And again, please note, that the phenomenon described in no way implies mental illness.

[tomcalab]

201. Masochistic Tendencies.

No Problem.

But a believer starting a thread like this one at DU must at least have masochistic tendencies. - lol

Cheers

[TallahasseeGrannie]

177. You speak for me, as well.

Thank you.

[tomcalab]

179. You're Welcome

Peace be with You.

[neebob]

156. So, in other words,

if you don't get arrested, then you know you're not breaking the law. Right?

[tomcalab]

191. Cause and Effect - Did I get it right?

Given; Cause=Creator, and Effect=Existing atoms

And...
A=Atheist B=Believer

Question #1. Is the cause necessary and sufficient?

Is a creator necessary for atoms to exist? A=No, B=Yes

Is it sufficient to say that a creator made atoms because they exist? A=No B=Yes

Question #2. Is the cause capable of producing the desired effect?

Is it possible that a creator can make atoms? A=No B=Yes

Question #3. Might some other cause offset the desired effect?

Could some other cause stop atoms from existing? A=No B=Yes

Summary:

1)Atoms exist because?
Atheists say the effect is sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.
Believers say the effect is not sufficient to say that a creator is not necessary.

2)Can atoms be created?
Atheists say atoms can not be created because there is no creator. Atoms exist because they exist. This is why Athism is a religion. See Footnote (a) below.

Believers say a creator is capable of creating atoms.

3)Could something have stopped atoms from existing?

To be fair, Atheists are mixed on this, but most I've heard are saying: I am because I am, inevitable pathways, algorhythus, inherant properties of matter. So my guess is that they would say nothing could stop atoms from existing because they exist.
Believers say atoms do not have to exist because they were created.

Footnotes:
a)
Atheist: "I am because I am"

Beleiver: Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

Most Aetheists I've heard are also saying that the universe is infinite. It's really hard for me to imagine that. Almost as hard as it is for an Atheist to beleive in spirits.

However...

Most beleivers I've heard say that the universe is finite, and there is something beyond called heaven.

[neebob]

228. How about a nice straightforward conversation

backed up by some nice straightforward thinking, where A equals the question I posed in #156 and B equals your answer. Did you or did you not say that you need law enforcement to assist in determining your compliance with the law?

I'm questioning your very first statement. Whatever made you think I'd be ready to address more of the same kinds of statements?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

194. Until then, God exists in the minds of people

As do aliens from space.

However there seems to be some evidence that aliens from space might actually exist.

[tomcalab]

197. Aliens?

Really, do you have a link?

Cheers

[Freedom_from_Chains]

210. No, I don't have a link

It's just my belief. You're not questioning my belief are you?

[tomcalab]

215. No...I'm not questioning your beief.

Peace Be With You

[Freedom_from_Chains]

246. Well if you are not questioning my beliefs, you should. I would.

And peace also be with you. :toast:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

306. If there is a God (I believe so), I bet he/she/it is laughing

Because we are all wrong

[tomcalab]

309. I don't think so.

I don't think so, and evidence would imply otherwise. The Bible has told me that God is always longing for people to know him, just as a parent would long for the return of a child.

Shown in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32).

[Random_Australian]

312. And what evidence have you, exactly, for that quote of the Bible bieng

true?

[Ron Green]

319. Of course we are all wrong, but we're sometimes all right.

As long as we're bound here by space, time and our individual natures, we'll have but fleeting glimpses of the Whole. I think our job is to stay sufficiently open to ALL forms of truth that our love eventually overcomes our fear, tipping the balance in our own selves and in the world.

If God's laughing, I believe it's with us and not at us.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

322. You said it more eloquently than did I

[Finder]

323. Part Deux thread for this topic...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x91186


Unless I am the only one getting lost trying to keep up here.