# Does God Exist? [Arguments & Proofs]



## ducati916 (24 February 2010)

kennas said:


> I think I commented here about 4 years ago.
> 
> No, in the modern religious sense.
> 
> ...




The other, original thread, has obviously been going for some time. Nowhere in that thread [that I have found] is the actual question defined in terms that could possibly engender a serious argument or proof to be refuted.

If you are going to argue about a gaaark, everyone must first understand and agree what a gaaark actually is.

This particular question has preoccupied some of the best minds in history. The way they approached the question was in the following manner.

*A reality that transcends time and space
*The ground of being and value
*A reality worthy of man’s worship

Notice that God is not defined as a being, rather, as a reality. The reason is that a being connotes a something existing in spatiotemporal understanding, alongside other spatiotemporal somethings. Philosophers who have believed that God exists, and that his existence could be proved, have not intended to assert the existence of a being occupying some particular region of time-space. They have meant to assert, rather, the existence of a reality that is not subject to these categories. Hence, God is not a being, but a reality.

The term ground, has been employed by Philosophers when talking about cause. A cause is a spatiotemporal something, that stands in a certain relation to something else that is called it’s effect. As God, a reality, stands outside of spatiotemporal consideration, so ground is adopted in place of cause.

There have been five primary arguments put forward in relation to proofs in support of God’s existence:

*Ontological
*Cosmological
*Teleological
*Moral
*Religious Experience

The first two carry the majority of the intellectual firepower, with the moral argument tending to support the first two, rather than creating a new a separate line of reasoning. I shall be looking at, and analysing the first two arguments, the first, comes from St Anslem.

jog on
duc


----------



## springhill (24 February 2010)

There is no PROOF a "God' exists, only misguided hopeful beliefs and those (long ago) that created a God, Deity, El Supremo whatever the hell is your terminology of choice. Maybe if i get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.

All total BS.... a 'God'.... therefore a 'religion' based upon following the belief that this 'being', spirit', or even 'dude that lives in the sky' is a crock of s**t.

Merely a way of controlling the lemmings and amassing as much wealth as possible.

All a matter of denying we are no better than any other species that walks this planet, and that something SPECIAL awaits us when we pass on. sorry folks, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, remember man that you are dust and unto dust you shall return!

Money is power, whether it be Govt, Mother Earth raping companies, or religion.

There is a sucker born every minute, only a matter of which blood sucking, money hoarding faith can convert them first.


----------



## ducati916 (24 February 2010)

> There is no PROOF a "God' exists, only misguided hopeful beliefs and those (long ago) that created a God, Deity, El Supremo whatever the hell is your terminology of choice. Maybe if i get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.
> 
> All total BS.... a 'God'.... therefore a 'religion' based upon following the belief that this 'being', spirit', or even 'dude that lives in the sky' is a crock of s**t.




There are a number of proofs. This subject, while vastly diminished in importance in our current time period, was, the most important question in other ages.

As such, the finest minds of their respective times, grappled with the question. As I have indicated, God, as depicted in the Bible etc is absolutely the wrong place to start.

Essentially, Religion, is symbology. This approach is childish. Rather, the approach taken by St Anslem, St Thomas Aquinas, who are quite honestly far ahead of current thinkers.

I shall present the proofs and add my analysis. Of course, if you feel that you can in a logical manner, refute the arguments, I'll be most interested.

jog on
duc


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> As I have indicated, God, as depicted in the Bible etc is absolutely the wrong place to start.




This is the point where the majority are stuck. Hopefully, you can move people on from here; I've tried over the course of the thread unsuccessfully and it is essential to do so, otherwise the debate is continuously dragged back to arguments over that model.



> Essentially, Religion, is symbology. This approach is childish. Rather, the approach taken by St Anslem, St Thomas Aquinas, who are quite honestly far ahead of current thinkers.
> 
> I shall present the proofs and add my analysis. Of course, if you feel that you can in a logical manner, refute the arguments, I'll be most interested.
> 
> ...




Looking forward to it. 

N.B. Can folks please try to keep this thread on the specific topic and leave the "yes it is, no it isn't" jousting for the other thread.


----------



## Agentm (24 February 2010)

i spoke to god about it for you wayne

two things he mentioned

1/ your wasting your time on a question you already know the answer to

2/ said something about a certain mr reaper visiting soon.. whats that all about?


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2010)

Agentm said:


> i spoke to god about it for you wayne
> 
> two things he mentioned
> 
> ...




OK, I guess the loco weed will do that to some people. 

But I'm wondering - of all the people who have commented on this topic, why choose me as the subject of your excursion into fantasyland?

Can we keep this on topic please?


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

springhill said:


> There is no PROOF a "God' exists, only misguided hopeful beliefs and those (long ago) that created a God, Deity, El Supremo whatever the hell is your terminology of choice. Maybe if i get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.
> 
> All total BS.... a 'God'.... therefore a 'religion' based upon following the belief that this 'being', spirit', or even 'dude that lives in the sky' is a crock of s**t.




You're entitled to your view but I think you and everyone else should define, for any type of argument on this matter, the 'degree' of proof you are referring to in whatever argument you are putting forward.

I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since *there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God *then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.

Personally, the Bible and my personal experiences in life are sufficient proof for me to be convinced that God exists but I certainly don't expect anyone else to blindly accept what I accept as proof of God's existence and I am not trying to change anyone's views.

BTW, it's encouraging to see that a 'road to Damascus' like experience might still change your mind -  


> Maybe if I get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2010)

Simple.

If there was a god, Elvis would still be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> The other, original thread, has obviously been going for some time. Nowhere in that thread [that I have found] is the actual question defined in terms that could possibly engender a serious argument or proof to be refuted.



duc,

You strike me as the type that would find the research/methods used by Dr Michael Newton fascinating. His work with hypnosis & regression to induce "between life" therapy states seems to povide some sort of spiritual modal that is actually free of contradictions whilst not specifically debunking or ridiculing any general spiritual theories or beliefs.


----------



## Beej (24 February 2010)

I prefer Douglas Adams proof from The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:



> `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
> 
> `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
> 
> `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.




So all we need to do is identify what the equivalent of the "Babel Fish" is in today's society, and we have our proof!! 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since *there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God *then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.




*"that proves the existence or non-existence of God"*    That's it, it is just belief, as in the fairies at the bottom of the garden and Santa Clause.  And such stories of belief are, in fact, an asent to youngsters when they learn the truth to tell white lies themselves, the rest of course is history.


----------



## Calliope (24 February 2010)

Beej said:


> I prefer Douglas Adams proof from The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:
> 
> 
> 
> > `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'




Well done Beej. That's it in a nutshell. It cuts through all the b/s. Logic is the winner.
.


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2010)

Mofra said:


> Simple.
> 
> If there was a god, Elvis would still be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.




Good point! LOL


----------



## bellenuit (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since *there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God *then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.




Just one point Bulldoza and you have also raised it in the other thread. You have asked for proof that God doesn't exist.

It is not actually possible to PROVE the non-existence of anything. I believe this is philosophy 101.

Whereas one sighting, as an example, may be sufficient to prove that something exists, the fact that not one person since the beginning of time has sighted something does not prove that that something doesn't exist.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Just one point Bulldoza and you have also raised it in the other thread. You have asked for proof that God doesn't exist.




*bellenuit - This is simply not true* - I have never asked anyone to provide proof that God does not exist.

What is the post number you are claiming I made such a request?


----------



## disarray (24 February 2010)

ducati916 said:
			
		

> Notice that God is not defined as a being, rather, as a reality. Hence, God is not a being, but a reality.




like the force? or the laws of physics? so it is a manifestation of all spectrums and frequencies and quantum states and probabilities at the same time both inside and outside the universe? how does this "god" quality interact and impact upon the universe?

does god exert influence on universal processes like gravity and fusion and genetic manipulation (for the virgin births)? if not, then why call it god when we are merely experiencing a measurable, quantifiable universal process?

for sure god has nothing to do with the bible or any other cultural story. given current technology we are observing the edges of the universe and pulling apart atoms, and all of this is merely confirming the natural system based nature of the universe. what is the role of god in all of this? are we dissecting god every time we smash some subatomic particles together?

as for aquinas and anslem, their thinking is well outdated. aquinas does the whole "god is everything and infinite" angle which really just means god is the whole universe and whatever is beyond the universe. and if the universe is just a natural system then it's not, by definition, god.

and aslem goes the whole "god is soooooo big you can't even imagine it!" angle which i don't buy. the innate curiosity of our species, our intelligence and technological acumen have seen use perform miracles. curing the sick? pfft easy. walking on water? how about subs and spaceflight? 

there is no reason we cannot eventually fathom the nature of the universe both as a whole and as a sum of its parts. genetics is unlocking the door to create and manipulate life. nanotech is literally building things out of individual atoms. physics has been dissecting the universe and has got to a stage where we need to rewrite an infinite rulebook of interrelational probabilities (god's manual as it were). hubble is taking holiday snaps from the beginning of time. we have no need for a god outside when we can grow to be gods within.


----------



## bellenuit (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> *bellenuit - This is simply not true* - I have never asked anyone to provide proof that God does not exist.
> 
> What is the post number you are claiming I made such a request?




Yes, you are correct in that you haven't asked anyone to prove God doesn't exist. But, the impression I got from some of your posts is that you thought it could be possible to prove that God doesn't exists. My apologies if I got you wrong on this.

This from the other thread...

#1272



> If you feel your post conclusively proves Matthew's Gospel is sufficently at odds with Luke's Gospel to the point where it conclusively proves God does not exist, then why not take your post to the media and see if it will stand up to their scrutiny.




#1274



> If Richard Dawkins had conclusive proof that God does not exist, I am sure at least the media would be all over it one way or the other.




And your first post on this thread...



> I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.




In this quote I made the assumption that since you said that there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the ... non-existence of God that you are implicitly suggestion that there could be such evidence but no one has come up with it.


----------



## Bushman (24 February 2010)

Not sure why people waste energy on this stuff. How could you empirically measure the 'supernatural' anyway? Science seeks to prove/dissprove hypothesis based on the observed laws of the natural world. 

So if it is 'supernatural' (clever trick that), then it cannot be measured and falls outside the realm of scientific theorum. 

That is why it requires faith; it doesn't bleed!


----------



## ducati916 (24 February 2010)

> like the force? or the laws of physics? so it is a manifestation of all spectrums and frequencies and quantum states and probabilities at the same time both inside and outside the universe? how does this "god" quality interact and impact upon the universe?
> 
> does god exert influence on universal processes like gravity and fusion and genetic manipulation (for the virgin births)? if not, then why call it god when we are merely experiencing a measurable, quantifiable universal process?
> 
> for sure god has nothing to do with the bible or any other cultural story. given current technology we are observing the edges of the universe and pulling apart atoms, and all of this is merely confirming the natural system based nature of the universe. what is the role of god in all of this? are we dissecting god every time we smash some subatomic particles together?





Some of the usual objections, and they certainly have validity. In that they have validity, I shall certainly address some/most along the way.




> as for aquinas and anslem, their thinking is well outdated. aquinas does the whole "god is everything and infinite" angle which really just means god is the whole universe and whatever is beyond the universe. and if the universe is just a natural system then it's not, by definition, god.




Actually, I disagree. The arguments provided by Anslem are quite profound. I'm not saying they are without valid criticism, however, this criticism I intend to address and thus modify the arguments slightly. Feel free to refute.



> and aslem goes the whole "god is soooooo big you can't even imagine it!" angle which i don't buy. the innate curiosity of our species, our intelligence and technological acumen have seen use perform miracles. curing the sick? pfft easy. walking on water? how about subs and spaceflight?




Incorrect. You are falling very short of the argument.



> there is no reason we cannot eventually fathom the nature of the universe both as a whole and as a sum of its parts. genetics is unlocking the door to create and manipulate life. nanotech is literally building things out of individual atoms. physics has been dissecting the universe and has got to a stage where we need to rewrite an infinite rulebook of interrelational probabilities (god's manual as it were). hubble is taking holiday snaps from the beginning of time. we have no need for a god outside when we can grow to be gods within.




I like your last statement. Indeed, it highlights an interesting idea which I shall also touch on.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (24 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> This is the point where the majority are stuck. Hopefully, you can move people on from here; I've tried over the course of the thread unsuccessfully and it is essential to do so, otherwise the debate is continuously dragged back to arguments over that model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*enzo*

Essentially I shall present initially St Anslems arguments, one proposition at a time with my own additional analysis and in some cases, modifications. At that point, anyone who wishes to refute that proposition, and/or argument can do so.

If, the proposition holds, then I'll move onto the second, third, etc. Obviously if I actually get to the fifth, without being refuted, then, based on the argument - God exists, which has been proven via logic and evidence.

Obviously, in a public forum, there will be those who simply have an opinion. That's fine, but I won't actually include [respond to] any opinions unless they address the individual proposition.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (25 February 2010)

The following proposition is the first of five propositions posited by St Anslem as his proof of God existing. I have reformulated the wording so as to be consistent with the definition provided yesterday.



> 1 By the term *God *is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived




Proposition 1 simply asserts a minimal definition of the term God. St Anslem is saying, in effect, that people who believe in God, believe in the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

Thus the only way to deny the existence of _God,_ is to deny the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived. So, essentially, our human reality, must be, to deny God, the reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, _of which none greater can be conceived,_ places the claimant in a very difficult position.

Of course before progressing to the second proposition, the first must be accepted. To be accepted, it must stand, in the face of all refutations.

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> The following proposition is the first of five propositions posited by St Anslem as his proof of God existing. I have reformulated the wording so as to be consistent with the definition provided yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Do you think St Anslem had an ego-based attachment to the concept of a GOD duc?


----------



## Bobby (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, _of which none greater can be conceived,_ places the claimant in a very difficult position.
> 
> Of course before progressing to the second proposition, the first must be accepted. To be accepted, it must stand, in the face of all refutations.
> 
> ...




Love your challenge duc , unfortunately the  believers don't want to participate so far , one wonders why   ?


----------



## satanoperca (25 February 2010)

My personal experience.

Lying in intensive care in a coma, what can I remember, not much, however;

What happened, heart stopped on three separate occasions. Stop breathing on many more. Our medical professionals are great.

So I was technically dead three times and yes I do remember there was a white light, transcending to heaven. No just the last pulses of electricity draining out of my body. Closest I wont to be to death. Miracle, no, medical advancement yes.

Show me a god so I can ask him why he created greed, pain and suffering that is happening all around the world.

Cheers

Satan


----------



## ducati916 (25 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Do you think St Anslem had an ego-based attachment to the concept of a GOD duc?




You know, I haven't the faintest idea.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (25 February 2010)

Bobby said:


> Love your challenge duc , unfortunately the  believers don't want to participate so far , one wonders why   ?




Probably a bit early in the morning for the heathens - only the rightous are up this early.

jog on
duc


----------



## Mofra (25 February 2010)

satanoperca said:


> So I was technically dead three times and yes I do remember there was a white light, transcending to heaven. No just the last pulses of electricity draining out of my body. Closest I wont to be to death. Miracle, no, medical advancement yes.



Thanks for sharing - personally I always find this sort of thing interesting. 

Apparently it's not an uncommon experience, although it can often be interpreted different ways depending on a person's beliefs.


----------



## disarray (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Proposition 1 simply asserts a minimal definition of the term God. St Anslem is saying, in effect, that people who believe in God, believe in the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived.




well it's BELIEF. you can't argue against faith which is why the whole thing is pointless. when you argue about god you are really just arguing with someones (skewed) perception of reality. so because you're arguing with a perception, you're aren't arguing about reality, therefore god isn't real except in the mind of the believer.

to be honest you're really just banging your head against someones inadequacies, as they have deliberately and willingly admitted that "there are limits to my conceptual capacity and ability". i reject that admission.



> Thus the only way to deny the existence of _God,_ is to deny the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived. So, essentially, our human reality, must be, to deny God, the reality, of which none greater can be conceived.




so to deny the existence of god you have to deny the existence of something that isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable? well if something isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST, except as a figment of imagination. i am willing to concede that god is imaginary 

this whole "god is so big you cannot conceive" argument is lame anyway. what can't we conceive? we can quantify, measure, and perceive the entire light / EM spectrum, subatomic particles, quantum effects, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. any gaps not filled in by mathematical (logical, testable and flexible when presented with new evidence) proofs provide a starting spot to start looking for evidence to fill in the gaps.

basically its the "you can't conceive it so you can't argue against it" and i reject this.



> Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, _of which none greater can be conceived,_ places the claimant in a very difficult position.




all this is saying is "god" is on a sliding scale that we keep pushing beyond the boundaries of our knowledge for as long as is convenient. i disagree with this. there is no limit to our conception because it can follow logical principles from 0 to infinity, it just takes time to work through the steps. now i am by no means saying we perceive all of reality but we have the potential to conceive it, the means to test for it, then develop the tools to perceive it.

for proposition 1 to stand you must accept that our conception has limits. i disagree and state there is nothing we cannot eventually conceive so proposition 1 is invalid.

by maintaining there is something outside our conception, that will always be outside our conception, then you are applying an arbitrary limit to human conception and the onus on proof then becomes yours to prove the limits of our conception.



			
				duc said:
			
		

> Probably a bit early in the morning for the heathens - only the rightous are up this early




yeah us stargazing heathens tend to be night owls


----------



## Sidamo (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality.




That's hardly a problem for science, it's more of a problem for Anslem's claim. It should be obvious that "something that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (henceforth STTWNGCBC) in 2000 AD is greater than STTWNGCBC in 1500 AD, which is turn greater than STTWNGCBC in 1000 AD and so on back into pre-history. Ergo, the "God" people believe in now is greater than the "God" people believed in back then, so obviously the "God" from back then wasn't actually "God" as per Anslem's definition, and it follows that "God" now will be less than "God" at any stage in the future, so "God" now can't be "God" either.

Also, it works in reverse too. Someone in 1000BC couldn't possibly conceive of our current reality, so they couldn't possibly conceive of something greater than our reality. Similarly, we can't possibly conceive of something greater than the reality of 3000AD (leaving Futurama aside) or any arbitrary date in the future.


----------



## Boognish (25 February 2010)

_Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. _

Science makes no claim whatsoever about the existence or otherwise of a god.  The process of science is one of creating a model to explain some natural phenomenon, called a hypothesis, and then testing/experimenting to try to prove that hypothesis wrong.  If sufficient testing is done and thus sufficient evidence is gained as to the hypothesis' strength or weakness, it becomes what we call a theory: eg, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection etc.

Science by definition cannot say anything about whether a god/ghosts/psychics/unicorns etc exist because there is no testable evidence to support any of these concepts (or, in the case of psychics, the tests always fail).  All science can do, and does, is provide testable explanations to *natural* phenomena that therefore do not require a *supernatural* explanation, eg a god.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with those who claim something does not exist, rather with those claim that something does.


----------



## ducati916 (25 February 2010)

*disarray*



> so to deny the existence of god you have to deny the existence of something that isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable? well if something isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST, except as a figment of imagination. i am willing to concede that god is imaginary




I'm going to refer you to the definition posted initially:

*A reality that transcends time and space.

To state that God is to be conceived as a reality that transcends time and space is to place emphasis on the point that God [in reality] does not conform to our notions of reality, as provided for by physics, chemistry, etc.

This is the point. Our bodies, our physical bodies, conform to the natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc. However our *minds * as distinct from our anatomical brain & CNS, do not [have to] conform to our physical laws.



> well it's BELIEF. you can't argue against faith which is why the whole thing is pointless. when you argue about god you are really just arguing with someones (skewed) perception of reality. so because you're arguing with a perception, you're aren't arguing about reality, therefore god isn't real except in the mind of the believer.




I'm not at this point too concerned with either belief, nor faith. That road, I agree is a dead-end. What I am concerned with however is the mind, and it's ability to reason. I am not addressing *reason* solely with reasoning ability, rather: reason as cognition, reason as emotion, reason as taste, reason as conation, reason as acting. Currently, it would seem, that the entire business of reason, is to attain scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, is not considered knowledge at all, it is, for all intents, considered irrational.

Thus the arguments. The arguments need to be considered and accepted or refuted with logical argument, that if refuting, addresses the argument directly.



> all this is saying is "god" is on a sliding scale that we keep pushing beyond the boundaries of our knowledge for as long as is convenient.




Again, I refer to the initial definition: _beyond spatiotemporal_ constraints. I would expect God, the reality, to always be beyond our boundaries, until, we become God.





> i disagree with this. there is no limit to our conception because it can follow logical principles from 0 to infinity, it just takes time to work through the steps.




You make this same point a little later in your post. I have addressed the issue there.



> now i am by no means saying we perceive all of reality but we have the potential to conceive it, the means to test for it, then develop the tools to perceive it.




Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way, this is not actually offering an argument against the proposition. You are offering an opinion.



> by maintaining there is something outside our conception, that will always be outside our conception, then you are applying an arbitrary limit to human conception and the onus on proof then becomes yours to prove the limits of our conception.




I'm positing [or rather St Anslem is] 1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived.

I am rather hopeful of the opposite, that humans will grow into the reality, I'm just not terribly optimistic on this point. However to your point: St Anslem is not instituting a sliding scale, that moves outwards, as we progress. The reason is again that God [reality] exists outside the spatitemporal physical. Physical progress, science of the physical, will never advance us to conception. Thus the onus of proving limits to conception are not required.



> for proposition 1 to stand you must accept that our conception has limits. i disagree and state there is nothing we cannot eventually conceive so proposition 1 is invalid.




Agreed. For proposition 1 to stand, God, must be _which none greater can be conceived._ That you disagree, is not a valid argument. I take your line of reasoning however. It would seem that you are using progress in the sciences [technology] as evidence of a steady progression of conception.

I would actually argue quite the opposite. That outside of the sciences, the so called soft sciences, there has been retrogression and atrophy. One example being economics.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (25 February 2010)

*sidamo*




> That's hardly a problem for science, it's more of a problem for Anslem's claim. It should be obvious that "something that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (henceforth STTWNGCBC) in 2000 AD is greater than STTWNGCBC in 1500 AD, which is turn greater than STTWNGCBC in 1000 AD and so on back into pre-history.
> 
> Ergo, the "God" people believe in now is greater than the "God" people believed in back then, so obviously the "God" from back then wasn't actually "God" as per Anslem's definition, and it follows that "God" now will be less than "God" at any stage in the future, so "God" now can't be "God" either.




But it's actually quite the opposite. People in St Anslems era were far more God fearing, religious, pious, etc. than they are today. Today, God is in disrepute, mocked by science. Thus God has been lessened in peoples perceptions by science. Therefore your argument contains an inaccuracy, on this basis, the proposition still holds.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (25 February 2010)

Boognish said:


> _
> 
> 
> The burden of proof doesn't lie with those who claim something does not exist, rather with those claim that something does._



_

True. Which is what St Anslem attempted to do.

jog on
duc_


----------



## derty (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> I'm going to refer you to the definition posted initially:
> 
> *A reality that transcends time and space.
> 
> To state that God is to be conceived as a reality that transcends time and space is to place emphasis on the point that God [in reality] does not conform to our notions of reality, as provided for by physics, chemistry, etc.





			
				ducati916 said:
			
		

> 1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived



For God to transcend space and time he must be not of this universe and therefore exist external to it. Which would be true if he is the creator of this universe. 

By conceive, if you mean; _To apprehend mentally; understand._

_Then:_ I cannot conceive what is not within this universe. I challenge any man to say he can. Therefore I personally cannot conceive God. If I cannot even conceive God it stands to reason that I cannot conceive a reality greater than God.

However if, By conceive, if you mean; _ To form or hold an idea_ 

_Then:_ yes I can imagine a God or being that transcends space and time. I can also imagine a God or reality greater than that one. And another greater than that one again.


----------



## explod (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> *
> 
> I'm not at this point too concerned with either belief, nor faith. That road, I agree is a dead-end.
> 
> ...



*

A dead end of course as those words, belief / faith  are one and the same in  the current context in my view.   The distinguising factor is knowledge, to know, and we really do not know either way.*


----------



## disarray (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> *A reality that transcends time and space
> 
> To state that God is to be conceived as a reality that transcends time and space is to place emphasis on the point that God [in reality] does not conform to our notions of reality, as provided for by physics, chemistry, etc.




there is nothing that transcends time and space, it is part of the system or it is nothing at all. once again the argument seems to be "it's too big for us to comprehend and outside our scope" which i disagree with. 

if it is not measurable, quantifiable, perceptible or able to be conceptualised then it is cannot be a "reality" and so cannot be inhabited by "god".



> However our *minds * as distinct from our anatomical brain & CNS, do not [have to] conform to our physical laws.




yes they do, because they are the sum of quantifiable processes. memory, imagination, conceptualisation are all ordered by-products of a physical, measurable, systemic stimulus / response procedure (that we are in the process of working out)

aren't you making a leap of faith to state that our mind is something transcendent when it is quite clearly just a lump of highly organised, wonderfully engineered, electrically charged, biochemically managed meat? there aren't any ghosts in the machine (and if you think there are the onus is on you to prove it) 



> I am not addressing reason solely with reasoning ability, rather: reason as cognition, reason as emotion, reason as taste, reason as conation, reason as acting. Currently, it would seem, that the entire business of reason, is to attain scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, is not considered knowledge at all, it is, for all intents, considered irrational.




but cognition, emotion, taste etc. are, once again, all measurable and quantifiable processes. i think our disconnect and what you and i won't be able to resolve is this simple fact -

i see everything as a measurable, quantifiable, systemic procedure. every single thing in the universe can (eventually) be unravelled and reduced to a sum / a system / a procedure. these concepts will all be testable under the scientific method and this "reality of which none greater can be conceived" is something we as a species will be able to understand.

you (or st. aslem) seem to see something ethereal outside of natural processes, transcending the universe, which can never be tested, proven or disproven. this belief can only be maintained by faith, the absence of data from those who disagree and arguing states of existence that do not, and cannot by definition, exist.



> Again, I refer to the initial definition: _beyond spatiotemporal_ constraints. I would expect God, the reality, to always be beyond our boundaries, until, we become God.




there is nothing outside spatiotemporal constraints so the very concept itself is meaningless. there's quite a few papers on this floating around, google "god outside spacetime" or something like where people smarter than me argue against this very point st. anslem makes.



> I'm positing [or rather St Anslem is] 1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived.




why define this ultimate reality as god rather than an process? do you accept that "god" can be a process? like an ultimate sum or a grand unified theory or something? in which case we're down to questions of definition.



> Physical progress, science of the physical, will never advance us to conception. Thus the onus of proving limits to conception are not required.




says who? saying we will never understand the nature of the universe is merely an opinion and you are still required to prove that our conception will remain limited (by physical, technological, intellectual factors or what have you)



> I would actually argue quite the opposite. That outside of the sciences, the so called soft sciences, there has been retrogression and atrophy. One example being economics.




this is irrelevant to the topic and also an opinion as this "retrogression" may very well be just part of the systemic cycle we are part of. BYO crystal ball of course


----------



## So_Cynical (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> As I have indicated, God, as depicted in the Bible etc is absolutely the wrong place to start.




A god that is not interventionist and all powerful and capable of miracles at any time...is simply not a god.


----------



## Sidamo (25 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> But it's actually quite the opposite. People in St Anslems era were far more God fearing, religious, pious, etc. than they are today. Today, God is in disrepute, mocked by science. Thus God has been lessened in peoples perceptions by science. Therefore your argument contains an inaccuracy, on this basis, the proposition still holds.




Not really. Whether people are more pious or not is irrelevant to the question at hand.

According to Anslem's proposition, God has to be greater than the entirety of the known universe. Our knowledge of the universe is far greater today than 1000 years ago, so it stands to reason that any god conceived of today which would satisfy Anslem's proposition would have to be far greater far greater than any conceived of by people 1000 years ago, and similarly, a conception of god from 1000 years in the future would be greater than today's conception. My argument still stands.


----------



## ducati916 (26 February 2010)

derty said:


> For God to transcend space and time he must be not of this universe and therefore exist external to it. Which would be true if he is the creator of this universe.
> 
> By conceive, if you mean; _To apprehend mentally; understand._
> 
> ...




Interesting.

I can't actually definitively answer your question [challenge] as obviously I didn't write the proposition. As regards the progression, simply jump to the endpoint.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (26 February 2010)

explod said:


> A dead end of course as those words, *belief / faith*  are one and the same in  the current context in my view.   The distinguising factor is *knowledge*, to know, and we really do not know either way.




Epistemology, and the arguments twixt Rationalism and Empiricism, can actually illuminate that in point of fact, we may know. Hold this thought, at the moment simply a definition is causing some problems.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (26 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Not really. Whether people are more pious or not is irrelevant to the question at hand.
> 
> According to Anslem's proposition, God has to be greater than the entirety of the known universe. Our knowledge of the universe is far greater today than 1000 years ago, so it stands to reason that any god conceived of today which would satisfy Anslem's proposition would have to be far greater far greater than any conceived of by people 1000 years ago, and similarly, a conception of god from 1000 years in the future would be greater than today's conception. My argument still stands.




Alternatively, as human knowledge, through the sciences, has progressed, the attribution to God has diminished.

You are arguing a progression in knowledge, without a concomitant change in the actual physical world. Thus, the world, the resources, are unchanged. What has changed, is human knowledge in how to best utilise these resouces to satisfy human wants. Your argument contains a fallacy.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (26 February 2010)

*disarray*



> there is nothing that transcends time and space, it is part of the system or it is nothing at all. once again the argument seems to be "it's too big for us to comprehend and outside our scope" which i disagree with.
> 
> if it is not measurable, quantifiable, perceptible or able to be conceptualised then it is cannot be a "reality" and so cannot be inhabited by "god".




Notice that God is not defined as a being, rather, as a reality. The reason is that a being connotes a something existing in spatiotemporal understanding, alongside other spatiotemporal somethings. Philosophers who have believed that God exists, and that his existence could be proved, have not intended to assert the existence of a being occupying some particular region of time-space. They have meant to assert, rather, the existence of a reality that is not subject to these categories. Hence, God is not a being, but a reality.


The concept being promulgated above is something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. I have alluded to the poverty in intellectualism, with the ascendancy of the physical sciences. Reason is the final principal of reality.

Language, and it's useage, is both a sign and symptom of the underlying disease underlying reason. Evidence of which is all around us. I will return to this point.



> yes they do, because they are the sum of quantifiable processes. memory, imagination, conceptualisation are all ordered by-products of a physical, measurable, systemic stimulus / response procedure (that we are in the process of working out)




You are mixing quantitative in with qualitative. Yes our knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology are improving. This I agree is quantitative. However, imagination, is a qualitative variable, as is memory. If you take the physical CNS of two individuals, anatomically, they will be the same. The same neurophysiological biochemistry will be present. The output however can [and is] significantly different. This is a qualitative variable.





> aren't you making a leap of faith to state that our mind is something transcendent when it is quite clearly just a lump of highly organised, wonderfully engineered, electrically charged, biochemically managed meat? there aren't any ghosts in the machine (and if you think there are the onus is on you to prove it)




Making a leap-of-faith? No. The range of human accomplishment, based on the same anatomy, is testimony to the fact.



> but cognition, emotion, taste etc. are, once again, all measurable and quantifiable processes. i think our disconnect and what you and i won't be able to resolve is this simple fact -




Quite the opposite. They are all qualitative, they vary in an individual from moment-to-moment, they are the very antithesis of quantitative.



> i see everything as a measurable, quantifiable, systemic procedure. every single thing in the universe can (eventually) be unravelled and reduced to a sum / a system / a procedure. these concepts will all be testable under the scientific method and this "reality of which none greater can be conceived" is something we as a species will be able to understand.




That is becoming quite obvious. Going slightly off-topic, economics, is an example of qualitative action, that has been usurped into econometrics via the Chicago School, look at the mess they made, simply because they didn't [and don't] understand this basic problem - that human action, is not quantitative, that mathematics in economics, is a fatal flaw. Mathematics, is of course, a vital underpinning to physics, and as such, has been held in high esteem.



> you (or st. aslem) seem to see something ethereal outside of natural processes, transcending the universe, which can never be tested, proven or disproven. this belief can only be maintained by faith, the absence of data from those who disagree and arguing states of existence that do not, and cannot by definition, exist.




We _ are arguing that data, empirical knowledge, *a posteriori* and knowledge apprehended *a priori * can co-exist. That reason, a priori knowledge, is valid and relevant. That the question of God, falls into a priori reasoning, not, a posteriori.




			there is nothing outside spatiotemporal constraints so the very concept itself is meaningless. there's quite a few papers on this floating around, google "god outside spacetime" or something like where people smarter than me argue against this very point st. anslem makes.
		
Click to expand...



Ok, I'll have to come back to you on this issue.




			why define this ultimate reality as god rather than an process? do you accept that "god" can be a process? like an ultimate sum or a grand unified theory or something? in which case we're down to questions of definition.
		
Click to expand...



My first impression is yes. I can accept that [although I reserve the right to modify this initial position after having time to ponder the implications] I agree, at this point, we are simply arguing a definition. The further arguments however proceed on this definition being accepted.




			says who? saying we will never understand the nature of the universe is merely an opinion and you are still required to prove that our conception will remain limited (by physical, technological, intellectual factors or what have you)
		
Click to expand...



Simply my opinion. I'm not enslaved to this however, and accept that I will qite possibly be totally wrong. My intuition is, that to apprehend God, will require advances in our abilities in other directions, directions that are currently in retrogression.




			this is irrelevant to the topic and also an opinion as this "retrogression" may very well be just part of the systemic cycle we are part of. BYO crystal ball of course
		
Click to expand...



Yes, and no. The very idea that the physical sciences, physics in particular, represent mans highest achievements are particularly pervasive, and may well account for many of today's ills. But, I'm sure this topic will re-emerge under good/evil later on at some point as ethics enters into the discussion.

jog on
duc_


----------



## Sidamo (26 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> You are arguing a progression in knowledge, without a concomitant change in the actual physical world. Thus, the world, the resources, are unchanged. What has changed, is human knowledge in how to best utilise these resouces to satisfy human wants.




Yes, but we're also being asked to imagine/conceive of something, an idea as such, than which nothing greater can be conceived. Therefore the limits to our imagination are very relevant. What science has done is change our ability to conceive greater things. Our imagination has expanded in leaps and bounds and therefore so has our conception of "God".


----------



## explod (26 February 2010)

> Yes, and no. The very idea that the physical sciences, physics in particular, represent mans highest achievements are particularly pervasive, and may well account for many of today's ills. But, I'm sure this topic will re-emerge under good/evil later on at some point as ethics enters into the discussion.
> 
> jog on
> duc




You are now running with my tendency to generalise here duc, ..."may well account for *many* of todays ills"...     Is *that* so?


----------



## Sidamo (26 February 2010)

Wouldn't a God who has done all the things attributed to him without actually existing, be greater than a God who had to actually exist to accomplish the same feats?


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Yes, but we're also being asked to imagine/conceive of something, an idea as such, than which nothing greater can be conceived. Therefore the limits to our imagination are very relevant. What science has done is change our ability to conceive greater things. Our imagination has expanded in leaps and bounds and therefore so has our conception of "God".




I actually like this argument. Definitely on the right track as far as providing argument that challenges the specific proposition under discussion. My response is as follows.

Yes science has taken our knowledge further. Therefore I accept that [potentially] our imaginations have also changed, relative to previous era's, thus a change in our ability to conceive.

There is one important difference however: science has moved us forward in the area of the *material* but not the* immaterial.* The original definition states: A reality transcending time and space. Thus this reality, likely lacks the material that science studies. As such, the dichotomy of your argument is exposed, and can be rejected as valid.

Most of the arguments, objections, concern themselves with this concept of immateriality. I also noted that the previous thread, had numerous references to this lack of physical evidence, that seemingly made any proofs impossible.

This area of objection needs to be addressed.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Wouldn't a God who has done all the things attributed to him without actually existing, be greater than a God who had to actually exist to accomplish the same feats?






This objection, is similar to the objection that was posited by Gauanilo, to proposition 3. You are jumping ahead - or, do you accept proposition 1 now?

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

explod said:


> You are now running with my tendency to generalise here duc, ..."may well account for *many* of todays ills"...     Is *that* so?




Indeed I am generalising here, as, I am offering only my opinion. The opinion however has no direct connection to the proposition, thus, is not particularly important one way or another.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

*et al*

Just to expand further on my previous assertion:



> However our *minds* as distinct from our anatomical brain & CNS, do not [have to] conform to our physical laws.




*disarry* replied:



> yes they do, because they are the sum of quantifiable processes. memory, imagination, conceptualisation are all ordered by-products of a physical, measurable, systemic stimulus / response procedure (that we are in the process of working out)
> 
> aren't you making a leap of faith to state that our mind is something transcendent when it is quite clearly just a lump of highly organised, wonderfully engineered, electrically charged, biochemically managed meat? there aren't any ghosts in the machine (and if you think there are the onus is on you to prove it)




To move the argument forward: Searle in 1990 formulated the following arguments:



> (A1) "Programs are formal (syntactic)."
> A program uses syntax to manipulate symbols and pays no attention the semantics of the symbols. It knows where to put the symbols and how to move them around, but it doesn't know what they stand for or what they mean. For the program, the symbols are just physical objects like any others.
> 
> 
> ...




Essentially, the arguments refute the arguments that the brain, anatomy, the hardware, and the neorophysiology, the software are the *causation of the mind.* This, in turn, begs the question, what is the* causation of mind?*

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

*et al*

Again, an expansion upon an assertion made earlier:



> i see everything as a measurable, quantifiable, systemic procedure. every single thing in the universe can (eventually) be unravelled and reduced to a sum / a system / a procedure. these concepts will all be *testable under the scientific method* and this "reality of which none greater can be conceived" is something we as a species will be able to understand.




The scientific method. From Kuhn,



> Science undergoes periodic "paradigm shifts" instead of progressing in a linear and continuous way
> 
> These paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding that scientists would never have considered valid before
> 
> Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity" - we must account for subjective perspectives as well






> Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a* relativistic *discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."




jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

*et al*

Si in summary, the arguments offered as refutation of the first proposition, viz. that the anatomy and physiology of the brain are sufficient explanations in-of-themselves to account for the property described as *mind* are wholly insufficient.

Second, that the notion of science, far from being progressive and objective, is in point of fact full of disconuities, subjectivity and bias. Thus, do not provide sufficient, nor logical argument, to refute the first proposition.

jog on
duc


----------



## Sidamo (27 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> There is one important difference however: science has moved us forward in the area of the *material* but not the* immaterial.* The original definition states: A reality transcending time and space. Thus this reality, likely lacks the material that science studies. As such, the dichotomy of your argument is exposed, and can be rejected as valid.




What is existence? Surely a minimal definition is 'presence in reality', and since the only reality that's relevant to us is one bounded by space & time, then 'existence', when used as an attribute by us, would necessarily refer to our reality. Either God has a material presence in our universe, in which case he can be said to 'exist', or he doesn't, in which case he doesn't 'exist', except as an idea or a concept, which is little more than being an imaginary friend.


----------



## ducati916 (27 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> What is existence? Surely a minimal definition is 'presence in reality', and since the only reality that's relevant to us is one bounded by space & time, then 'existence', when used as an attribute by us, would necessarily refer to our reality. Either God has a material presence in our universe, in which case he can be said to 'exist', or he doesn't, in which case he doesn't 'exist', except as an idea or a concept, which is little more than being an imaginary friend.




Tricky concept, or idea, is existence. Let's take the stance of _The Brain in a Vat:_



> In philosophy, the brain in a vat is an element used in a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning.
> 
> It is drawn from the idea, common to many science fiction stories, that a mad scientist might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives.
> 
> According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.




So what _really is existence?_ Do we really know? If we do know [as you seem to suggest] how, exactly do we know?

jog on
duc


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 February 2010)

My aunt Gertie in the High Country speaks to God every day.

She has made so many bad decisions in her long life, I doubt, just on her testimony alone, that he exists. 

gg


----------



## ducati916 (28 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Tricky concept, or idea, is existence. Let's take the stance of _The Brain in a Vat:_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As there seems to be no argument forthcoming on this question, here are some arguments that argue for an existence that is different than the one many would expect.



> [edit] *Malebranche*
> 
> Nicolas Malebranche, a student of the Cartesian School of Rationalism, disagreed that if the only things that we know for certain are the ideas within our mind, then the existence of the external world would be dubious and known only indirectly. He declared instead that the real external world is actually God. All activity only appears to occur in the external world. In actuality, it is the activity of God. For Malebranche, we directly know internally the ideas in our mind. Externally, we directly know God's operations. This kind of idealism led to the pantheism of Spinoza.






> [edit] *Collier*
> 
> Arthur Collier published the same assertions that were made by Berkeley. However, there seemed to have been no influence between the two contemporary writers. Collier claimed that the represented image of an external object is the only knowable reality. Matter, as a cause of the representative image, is unthinkable and therefore nothing to us. An external world, as absolute matter, unrelated to an observer, does not exist for human perceivers. As an appearance in a mind, the universe cannot exist as it appears if there is no perceiving mind.
> 
> Collier was influenced by John Norris's (1701) An Essay Towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World. The idealist statements by Collier were generally dismissed by readers who were not able to reflect on the distinction between a mental idea or image and the object that it represents.







> *Kant*
> 
> Immanuel Kant held that the mind shapes the world as we perceive it to take the form of space-and-time. It is said that Kant focused on the idea drawn from British empiricism (and its philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) that all we can know is the mental impressions, or phenomena, that an outside world, which may or may not exist independently, creates in our minds; our minds can never perceive that outside world directly. Kant made the distinction between things as they appear to an observer and things in themselves, "... that is, things considered without regard to whether and how they may be given to us ...





jog on
duc


----------



## Sidamo (28 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> So what _really is existence?_ Do we really know? If we do know [as you seem to suggest] how, exactly do we know?




What I do know is that if we don't know what our own existence is, we sure as hell don't need to worry about defining the existence of a god.

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God. Using Wikipedia as a source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations - feel free to provide another if you think WP is bogus), that accounts for about 50% of the global population. Now, I'd suggest that the vast majority of those people, if quizzed on their conception of God, would mention a personal God, who listens to their prayers, possibly intercedes in daily life on their behalf, etc. etc. *That's* the God in question.

The problem with the alleyway we're heading down is that we're now into all this rubbish about how you define existence, are we all hooked up to a Matrix-style computer feeding us inputs etc. etc. The end result of that, if indeed we ever get as far as accepting Anslem's proposition one, is that the resulting definition of a 'god' will be so loose, and subject to so many qualifications and codicils that it will bear no relation to anything that the man on the street would recognise as 'god'.


----------



## ducati916 (28 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> What I do know is that if we don't know what our own existence is, we sure as hell don't need to worry about defining the existence of a god.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God. Using Wikipedia as a source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations - feel free to provide another if you think WP is bogus), that accounts for about 50% of the global population. Now, I'd suggest that the vast majority of those people, if quizzed on their conception of God, would mention a personal God, who listens to their prayers, possibly intercedes in daily life on their behalf, etc. etc. *That's* the God in question.
> 
> The problem with the alleyway we're heading down is that we're now into all this rubbish about how you define existence, are we all hooked up to a Matrix-style computer feeding us inputs etc. etc. The end result of that, if indeed we ever get as far as accepting Anslem's proposition one, is that the resulting definition of a 'god' will be so loose, and subject to so many qualifications and codicils that it will bear no relation to anything that the man on the street would recognise as 'god'.




But I think we can safely surmise from the previous thread, no-one is particularly interested in what the average man believes or doesn't believe. The Bible is just some fairy story as far as I am concerned.

What does interest me is whether those who have given serious thought to the matter, have been able to quell the arguments against the existence of God in a rational and logical way.

As the arguments against the first proposition are now petering out - it's time to vote.

jog on
duc


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

To ducati916

Bible a fairy tale????What do you base this assumption on???

Doesn't it mean anything to you that a book that was completed some two thousand years ago is still the most read book on the planet? This is a book that has not gone out of fashion because it was inspired by a higher power and not by flawed human intelligence.

Science has come a long way in many ways but you only have to look at the forever changing conclusions on simple things like when to introduce nuts/eggs to infants and you should come to the realisation that science/ human intelligence has no real hope in answering more complex questions like whether God exists.

God is no fairy tale, he is very real but in our human attempt to appear clever we have in fact become fools my friend.


----------



## tech/a (14 October 2010)

The human race is arrogant.
It believes it knows how and why we are in existence.
The human concept of a god.

With the age of the universe being 13.75 Billion Years
and the existence of mankind 6million years
we think we know that there *has to be* a god!!

Frankly we have not advanced enough to believe let alone conceive any other concept--- even if it is staring us right in our face---evolution.

If there had been NO meteor strike to wipe out dinosaurs then there would STILL be dinosaurs and humans would not be on this planet and no God.

Sadly we have invented our own explanation of existence through God in its infinite forms.
Less than 2000 years ago we only had Sun/Rain/Sea and Fire gods,as we became more "intelligent" we needed more sophisticated "gods" so we invented them through story telling---The bible is told through 12 disciples.
We'd look pretty stupid worshipping Sun gods today!!!

In the next 2000 years we are sure to find/discover/create/introduce a few "gods" to add to those already worshipped to fit with our Sophistication as those we worship now become less attractive to man's capacity to understand his place.

(Which is in my view is a fluke in nature).


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

So we have some great falling rock to thank for our existence?
Wow very sophisticated thinking....

As I said in my previous post... How can we deduct that God doesn't exist if we can't answer basic questions such as when to introduce a simple nut or an egg to an infant's diet???

After so called billions of years of evolution humanity really hasn't made great inroads.


----------



## tech/a (14 October 2010)

> So we have some great falling rock to thank for our existence?
> Wow very sophisticated thinking....




And the alternative is Adam and Eve-----

The Rock fell---we actually know that.
Adam and Eve is story telling.

Sophistication at its prime.


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

Yes a rock fell and what next???
Or was it two rocks??? Male and female


----------



## explod (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> To ducati916
> 
> God is no fairy tale, he is very real but in our human attempt to appear clever we have in fact become fools my friend.




Your sentence does not make any sense at all.  

What do attempts to be clever have to do with fairy tales and how does that in turn make one a fool?


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

It's quite obvious.
People start drifting from the truth and in turn try to make up a whole new truth that is so implausible and needs more faith to make it plausible.


----------



## explod (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> It's quite obvious.
> People start drifting from the truth and in turn try to make up a whole new truth that is so implausible and needs more faith to make it plausible.




What is the truth, you have certainly not explained any truth here.


----------



## Ruby (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> To ducati916
> 
> Bible a fairy tale????What do you base this assumption on???
> 
> Doesn't it mean anything to you that a book that was completed some two thousand years ago is *still the most read book on the planet*?




Are you sure it is the most read book on the planet?  Do you have stats to support that?   I would doubt it.  Relatively few people actually *read *the bible.  (Ask around.)   Oh yes, people who go to church have bits of it read out to them; and most of us know a few quotes; and many people have bibles in their homes (which are never opened); and people who stay in hotels find them in the drawer of the bedside table; but how many actually *read *it?  And how many have read it right through?



bullsvsbears said:


> To ducati916
> 
> This is a book that has not gone out of fashion because *it was inspired by a higher power *and not by flawed human intelligence.




Bible inspired by a higher power??????   On what do you base *that *assumption???????

If it was inspired by a higher power and not by 'flawed human intelligence', why is it so full of contradictions?  And why does its 'writer' condone such atrocities as genocide, rape, pillage, incest, slavery, selling one's daughters in marriage, polygamy,etc, etc?  You cannot substantiate your claim.

(My bolds)


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

I think it's pretty clear. Now tell me your version of the truth!


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

Ruby, you obviously haven't read or understood the bible enough to get on your high horse!


----------



## Ruby (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Ruby, you obviously haven't read or understood the bible enough to get on your high horse!




I have read enough of the bible to support what I said.   You don't have to go very far through it to see all of that.   Genesis and Exodus will do.

Have you read it all the way through?  If so, you have no choice but to agree with me.


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 October 2010)

Sounds like a classic case of 'a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous'...
Yes the bible does mention atrocities/rape/wars.....but in no way does the author condone such behaviour. 

Humans still rape and commit murder and God in no way approves but it goes to highlight what human nature is capable of when there is separation from God. You just have to look at society these days to understand just how barbaric we can really be.


----------



## Options2010 (14 October 2010)

> Does God Exist?




...which one?

I have arguments against the god of the bible (problem of evil/unnecessary suffering, argument from non-belief, argument from inconsistent revelations).

There are also speculative arguments against the universe requiring a creator, for example, the various different interpretations of quantum theory (string theory etc.) and what each has to say about the initial conditions of the universe and possible "pre"-conditions before The Universe As We Know It came into existence. I highly doubt that a personal, intelligent creator is responsible. When I look out into reality, all I see is nature. It's quite glaringly obvious, actually. It's a shame people can't embrace reality, instead clinging on to comfortable delusion... such a shame.


----------



## tech/a (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Yes a rock fell and *what next*???
> Or was it two rocks??? Male and female




EErrr---

Dinosaurs extinct.
Evolution
Man evolves over 6 million years.
That is the truth and is proven.

Don't need any god or book or hypothesis to explain how we got here or how anything got here---it all simply evolved and some have evolved to a higher degree than others---and that sadly will always be the case.


----------



## Options2010 (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Sounds like a classic case of 'a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous'...
> Yes the bible does mention atrocities/rape/wars.....but in no way does the author condone such behaviour.
> 
> Humans still rape and commit murder and God in no way approves but it goes to highlight what human nature is capable of when there is separation from God. You just have to look at society these days to understand just how barbaric we can really be.




If you see someone getting raped, wouldn't you try and stop their attacker? Any morally responsible person would. So why won't your god? Either your god is malevolent, incompetent, or non-existent.


----------



## tech/a (14 October 2010)

Options2010 said:


> ...which one?
> 
> I have arguments against the god of the bible (problem of evil/unnecessary suffering, argument from non-belief, argument from inconsistent revelations).
> 
> There are also speculative arguments against the universe requiring a creator, for example, the various different interpretations of quantum theory (string theory etc.) and what each has to say about the initial conditions of the universe and possible "pre"-conditions before The Universe As We Know It came into existence. I highly doubt that a personal, intelligent creator is responsible. When I look out into reality, all I see is nature. It's quite glaringly obvious, actually. It's a shame people can't embrace reality, instead clinging on to comfortable delusion... such a shame.





Ahh
Someone who is a little more---evolved!
excellent.


----------



## roland (14 October 2010)

I'm continually amazed at the passion shown by firm believers in the bible and the lengths they go to to incite debates where there can be no other outcome than a stalemate.

I've noticed that bullsvsbears has all but 6 posts in the ASF forum devoted to religion and wonder if he or she is really in the correct forum.


----------



## explod (14 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> I think it's pretty clear. Now tell me your version of the truth!




I am not the one making the assertion.   We need to deal with your take on what is truth and how you can prove it with some direct physical evidence my friend.

The bible is secondary evidence at best has been re-writted and re-interpreted hundreds of times in the two thousand years.  A study of history alongside the development of the bible suggests input for political control of the people.

It has been well explained by clear thinkers of more recent scholarship that the dogma of religion stifles free choice, unencumbered education and free thinking.

I fear bulsvbears, that you are indeed a victim of this past dogma.


----------



## noco (14 October 2010)

Did God create man or did man create God?

I would choose the latter.

The bible has been quoted as being one third fable, one thrid fiction and one third the truth. It has been interpreted and rewritten that many times over the years that it is now far from the original.

I know so many people who go to church every Sunday and are absolute hypocrites. Some are known to steal, some have no respect for the the law, their husbands and wives, friends and neighbours. Some commit adultery.

I know a woman who converted to Jehova Witness and broke every rule in the book including leaving her husband. Incidently, the Jehova bible is different to the others.

Many use the bible as a shadow to cover their misdoings and consider themselves do gooders.

One's up bringing starts at home with good and understanding parents who teach their kids right from wrong. I know of families who never go to church and are far better citizens than the ones who go.

So why do we need the bible?


----------



## Julia (14 October 2010)

Oh, for god's sake (blasphemy intended):  do we really need yet another thread on religion?  Did you consider, bullsvsbears, looking for existing threads and adding your redundant comments to one of those?



bullsvsbears said:


> So we have some great falling rock to thank for our existence?
> Wow very sophisticated thinking....



The fact that you indulge in sarcasm, entirely unnecessarily, won't help your case.  If you do have a genuine case to make, you should have sufficient confidence in it to do so without being rude to other posters.



> As I said in my previous post... How can we deduct that God doesn't exist if we can't answer basic questions such as when to introduce a simple nut or an egg to an infant's diet???



That is truly one of the silliest questions I've ever seen posed on a forum.
It's nonsensical.  There is no connection.
You cannot demonstrate that God exists or does not exist by any possible means.  It's a matter of belief.

The use of eggs or nuts in an infant's diet, on the other hand, can quite obviously be shown to be useful or otherwise by means of scientifically tested clinical experiment.




> After so called billions of years of evolution humanity really hasn't made great inroads.



Again, utter nonsense.   You are dismissing all the scientific and humanitarian advances made by human beings.  Would you have us return to the barbaric times of the Bible?




bullsvsbears said:


> I think it's pretty clear. Now tell me your version of the truth!



That is a total non-response, and prevarication at its worst.




bullsvsbears said:


> Ruby, you obviously haven't read or understood the bible enough to get on your high horse!



Again you are being rude in the face of another poster offering her own point of view.  You have no grounds to be so dismissive.  You have no way of knowing how much of the Bible Ruby may have read.  She probably has the capacity to dismiss what she sees as irrelevant.




bullsvsbears said:


> Sounds like a classic case of 'a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous'...
> Yes the bible does mention atrocities/rape/wars.....but in no way does the author condone such behaviour.



"The author"?   Who is this author?   Are you suggesting there is a single author of the entire Bible?



> Humans still rape and commit murder and God in no way approves but it goes to highlight what human nature is capable of when there is separation from God. You just have to look at society these days to understand just how barbaric we can really be.



Again, utterly simplistic and unrealistic.  There is much rape and murder committed in the name of various gods.



roland said:


> I'm continually amazed at the passion shown by firm believers in the bible and the lengths they go to to incite debates where there can be no other outcome than a stalemate.
> 
> I've noticed that bullsvsbears has all but 6 posts in the ASF forum devoted to religion and wonder if he or she is really in the correct forum.



Quite so, roland.  
I'm also vaguely irritated at myself for being annoyed enough to respond.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Oh, for god's sake (blasphemy intended):  do we really need yet another thread on religion?  Did you consider, bullsvsbears, looking for existing threads and adding your redundant comments to one of those?
> 
> 
> (




um scroll back.

he did not start this thread.

and as for God.......he lives in Geraldton WA with the rest of the bewtiful ppl.


----------



## trainspotter (15 October 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> um scroll back.
> 
> he did not start this thread.
> 
> and as for God.......he lives in Geraldton WA with the rest of the bewtiful ppl.




I am here and available ... te he.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2010)

Uugh!

The same old binary argument.



			
				Options2010 said:
			
		

> It's a shame people can't embrace reality, instead clinging on to comfortable delusion... such a shame.




Religion is not a comfortable delusion at all, it is held in place via the use of fear... believe us, say your hail Marys , or burn in hell.

As to the nature of "reality": No matter what reality each of us believe as fact or "proven" (LOL), there are always inconvenient truths each must ignore to continue their own line of belief. (although some may be closer to reality than others )

I reckon the trick is to be happy with our own particular delusion and accept that other's delusions may be different.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2010)

tech/a said:


> The bible is told through 12 disciples.




Notwithstanding that I agree the bible is not inspired by God, categorical statements must be factual John.

Only a small portion of the New Testament was written by any of the 12 disciples, the New Testament being the smaller of the two that make up the Bible. I think those who have actually read it are more qualified to criticize. e.g. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ </pedantic>


----------



## explod (15 October 2010)

> Julia:       Quite so, roland.
> I'm also vaguely irritated at myself for being annoyed enough to respond.




Glad you did, and great post Julia.

We are absolutely fed up with our fellows being fed fairy tales.  The problems of the planet require absolute realism now.

So this type of dribble does touch the nerves of fair and clear thinkers.


----------



## Sean K (15 October 2010)

Reading a good book at the moment titled 'The Evolution of God', by Robert Wright. 

Recommended for those who want to understand how and why the fairy tales have developed into institutionalised dogma.


----------



## Ruby (15 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Sounds like a classic case of 'a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous'...
> Yes the bible does mention atrocities/rape/wars.....*but in no way does the author condone such behaviour. *




Oh really????   Try reading Exodus Chapter 21 in which 'god', having just given Moses the ten commandments, gives further instructions on how to deal with certain certain things which may arise when a man *buys a slave *(V. 2) and when he *sells his daughter *(v.7).  No amount of 'creative interpretation' can alter the clear meaning of that.  To read about god's approval of genocide, go to Chapter 23.  The bible does more than "mention" such things; the old testament is full of it.

As previous posters have said, the bible is a collection of writings by many authors over a long period of time, and is a mixture of myth, history, poetry, fiction, politics - all written with the particular bias of the author at the time - with *some *verifiable factual content.

I'm with you Julia - annoyed with myself for jumping into yet another go-nowhere argument.

(My bolds)


----------



## explod (15 October 2010)

kennas said:


> Reading a good book at the moment titled 'The Evolution of God', by Robert Wright.
> 
> Recommended for those who want to understand how and why the fairy tales have developed into institutionalised dogma.




Now that is interesting Kennas

I am reading a detailed biography on Karl Marx, by Francis Wheen 1999.   Passage read last night at p.32

"...theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy, and that scepticism will triumph over dogma."   at the time this was part of his doctorial proposal, he was just 19.

At 19 years I was absolutely innocent to the real world, knew the bible very well and was still coming to terms with the fact that my parents financial circumstancs had been such that I had not been able go to college and become a priest.  I was right into books on metaphysics too.

Our journeys to the light of real thruths are interesting indeed.


----------



## pilots (15 October 2010)

If God exist he/she is one sorry sick person, I have worked and lived in the poorest places on earth, I have seen kids starving to death, hundreds of them, don't try to tell me we have a God that is looking over them.


----------



## Frank D (15 October 2010)

pilots said:


> If God exist he/she is one sorry sick person... :




I think you’ll find the ‘sorry sick’ are those in government and in 
charge that allow these things to flourish in those countries.

And you’ll find there are a ton of religious and non-religious people trying 
their damned hardest to help them

Just curious, I’d be interested to know where are those poorest places?


----------



## Julia (15 October 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> um scroll back.
> 
> he did not start this thread.



Oops.  My apologies.
The rest of what I said stands, though


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2010)

Ruby said:


> Are you sure it is the most read book on the planet?  Do you have stats to support that?   I would doubt it.  Relatively few people actually *read *the bible.




I believe the IKEA catalogue is the most widely read book on the planet.



> *The IKEA Catalogue (US spelling: IKEA Catalog) is a popular mail-order catalogue published annually by the Swedish home furnishing retailer, IKEA. First published in Swedish in 1951, the catalogue is now published each summer in 55 different editions, in 27 languages for 35 countries, and is considered to be the main marketing tool of the retail giant, consuming 70% of the company's annual marketing budget.
> The catalogue prints approximately 175 million copies worldwide annually, meaning that it has published more than 3 times as much as The Bible.*



(Wikipedia)


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2010)

pilots said:


> If God exist he/she is one sorry sick person, I have worked and lived in the poorest places on earth, I have seen kids starving to death, hundreds of them, don't try to tell me we have a God that is looking over them.




Which makes you wonder why he would take the time out from his busy schedule to help Mary Mackillop perform a couple of "miracles."


----------



## gav (15 October 2010)

explod said:


> It has been well explained by clear thinkers of more recent scholarship that the dogma of religion* stifles free choice, unencumbered education and free thinking.*




A bit like government.  Funny that...


----------



## bullsvsbears (15 October 2010)

I don't think you get it Ruby.... Like I said 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
People had different customs those days just as people around the world have different customs these days. Not wrong but different to what you and I are used to. Slaves were part and parcel of the ancient world and Moses was in effect setting out the very foundations for law and order of the time. These rules were designed to make things run smoothly in society and yes punishment was ‘God forbid’ something that happened. We have also set rules and regulations for our time and we have named it ‘the  judicial system’ and as surprising at it may seem, the foundations for our laws’ have  been adopted from Moses’ time and refined for our generation. Even now different countries have different judicial systems and laws that you and I may not agree with but it doesn't make our system better. And yes putting people to death for doing wrong was part of the judicial process in those days as it is in many countries still today.
You can't just slag off religion by coming up with pathetic little arguments that don't have any substance or in fact depth. God will go on existing long after you and I are gone and there is NOTHING atheism can do to change this fact. What happens next is something you will have to deal with unless science works out a fairytale potion that gives you eternal life. But alas this won’t happen because we are not as smart as we think.


ps.... I love it how all these little atheists come out of the closet when they are challenged!!!!


----------



## derty (15 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> God will go on existing long after you and I are gone and there is NOTHING atheism can do to change this *fact*.




A little definition clarification for your personal growth 

*fact*–noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 

*belief*–noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


----------



## IFocus (15 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Uugh!
> 
> The same old binary argument.
> 
> ...




I always enjoy your posts Wayne the delusion bit is good


----------



## explod (15 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> .... I love it how all these little atheists come out of the closet when they are challenged!!!!




Not challengd at all.  I do not know if God exists or not and it is not bothersome to me.

You assert that he does so it is up to you to prove that point.  Written words from the bible do not prove the point.  You need physical facts which you fail to present.

My concern is the mental damage done to people by religious brainwashing from childhood which has the effect of turning them into people like yourself.


----------



## bullsvsbears (16 October 2010)

It's not up to me to prove anything ......it's up to you to open your eyes....
You call yourselves the enlightened ones and yet you chose to believe in some big bang theory. Is this supposed to disprove God existence or his creation?
I think not!..... Words like random and chance are used to explain our existence... So many gaps and such a huge leap of faith. How clever are we really when we regress to such arguments.


----------



## derty (16 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> You call yourselves the enlightened ones and yet you chose to believe in some big bang theory. Is this supposed to disprove God existence or his creation?



The identification of the big bang and other natural phenomena do not disprove God. It is not their aim and never was. 

The theories do however, make the role of a creator quite simply unnecessary. Okham's Razor does the rest.


----------



## joea (16 October 2010)

God plays his part in teaching us right from wrong.

As God is associated with Heaven, and the Devil is associated with hell, the first thing we need to prove is that Hell has frozen over.

Hell explained by a chemistry student.
A bonus question was asked.."Is Hell exothermic(gives off heat ) or endothermic(absorbs heat)

Most students replied by using Boyle's Law.
However one student wrote the following.

First we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there is more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look  at the rate of change of the volume in Hell, because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase "until all Hell breaks loose".

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until "Hell freezes over".
                            So which is it? 

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existance of a divine being which explains why, last night , Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God'.

Now if Hell is frozen over, where are we placed?

Well here, on Earth as living beings, and our Hell is watching the politicans stuffing up the country, Ricking Ponting trying to win cricket tests, Wayne Swan attempting to balance the budget, and Gillard trying to make sense.

What I do know is that when we leave we are surely entitled to go to a better place.

So THERE MUST BE A GOD.!!!


----------



## explod (16 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> It's not up to me to prove anything ......it's up to you to open your eyes....




You are the one asserting an existence of God so prove it ?



> You call yourselves the enlightened ones and yet you chose to believe in some big bang theory.




Do not call ourselves enlightened at all, just following what we believe to be common sense.  And the Big Bang, I am not a scientist so do not really know but its explanation seems to make more sense that the bibles version.   



> Is this supposed to disprove God existence or his creation?
> I think not!.....




No trying to do either and I do not know, you are the one asserting such matter.



> Words like random and chance are used to explain our existence... So many gaps and such a huge leap of faith. How clever are we really when we regress to such arguments




Of course there a still a lot of gaps.  That has nothing to do with the assertions of the rubbish that seems to eminate from the Bible, unless of course it has changed a lot since my studies of it in the 1960s

And on other posts, yes the principles of the Bible on right and wrong are good and such principles were in print and heeded well before the bible was written.    Society does require lawful guidance and good example.

And the word faith, a word used for and to ensure the masses follow the dogma of the controlling entity.


----------



## Sean K (16 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> How clever are we really when we regress to such arguments.



We should just go to the book for the truth on how it really all began I feel.

Genesis 1

The Beginning 

 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 

 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning””the first day. 

 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning””the second day. 

 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 

 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning””the third day. 

 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights””the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning””the fourth day. 

 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning””the fifth day. 

 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 

 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, * and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 

 27 So God created man in his own image, 
       in the image of God he created him; 
       male and female he created them. 

 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 

 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground””everything that has the breath of life in it””I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 

 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning””the sixth day.


Beats the hell out science, who can argue with that! *


----------



## explod (16 October 2010)

kennas said:


> Beats the hell out science, who can argue with that!




Ah ha, so we get to Saturday.   Maybe God launched Fosters.   He'd be rolling over in Heaven as they are not doing that well.


----------



## nunthewiser (16 October 2010)

kennas said:


> We should just go to the book for the truth on how it really all began I feel.
> 
> Genesis 1
> 
> ...




I think you will find you are mistaken.

it was Bon Scott( RIP) in the song" let there be rock"

i am happy to fight any man that disagrees


----------



## explod (16 October 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> I think you will find you are mistaken.
> 
> it was Bon Scott( RIP) in the song" let there be rock"
> 
> i am happy to fight any man that disagrees




Don't want to fight you there Nun, but getting back to God, as a kid I was told by my Uncle that "Paddy and Mick made the world with a pick and shovel"


----------



## nunthewiser (16 October 2010)

explod said:


> as a kid I was told by my Uncle that "Paddy and Mick made the world with a pick and shovel"




wise fella that uncle of yours as my father actually knew a paddy and he said the same thing.

must be true but they were probably to pi$$ed to write it down in a book to make it credible.


----------



## electronicmaster (16 October 2010)

kennas said:


> 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in *our* image, in *our* likeness




Check that out.  


"Let us make man in *our* image, in *our* likeness.

So what does this really tell you all?   How Meany *Other GODS* are there?

He does not say: 

"Let us make man in *My* image, in *My* likeness.


----------



## Julia (16 October 2010)

explod said:


> Ah ha, so we get to Saturday.   Maybe God launched Fosters.   He'd be rolling over in Heaven as they are not doing that well.







nunthewiser said:


> I think you will find you are mistaken.
> 
> it was Bon Scott( RIP) in the song" let there be rock"
> 
> i am happy to fight any man that disagrees



Excellent.  Reckon you could start with bullsvsbears, Nun?
I'd be happy to start a collection to send him/her over to W.A. to facilitate such an event.


----------



## explod (16 October 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> Check that out.
> 
> 
> "Let us make man in *our* image, in *our* likeness.
> ...




Good point but the mystery of the Holy Spirit as related in the teachings is that it *God* compises God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. , The second one got the job of coming down to earth to save mankind.

Mankind of course said "mind your own business" and hung him on the cross (symbolised by the crucifix).

Anyway he had some influence because it is that Spirit, of the three parts that make up the host (small round bread) that is offerred up, as the bread of life, in Holy Communion.

Jeeez, I'll be getting my bible out for this thread soon.


----------



## electronicmaster (16 October 2010)

explod said:


> Good point but the mystery of the Holy Spirit as related in the teachings is that it *God* compises God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. , The second one got the job of coming down to earth to save mankind.
> 
> Mankind of course said "mind your own business" and hung him on the cross (symbolised by the crucifix).
> 
> ...




Yes, ok, cool.  Who was he talking too when he was saying all of this stuff?

Was he in counsel with others at that time?


----------



## explod (16 October 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> Yes, ok, cool.  Who was he talking too when he was saying all of this stuff?
> 
> Was he in counsel with others at that time?




Good question, the answers I got as a boy were, "well that is the wonderful mystery" and true grace and blessings come from accepting God's word.  It is only after attaining a position within the Kingdom of God by going to heaven itself after our death shall we truly understand such mystery.

My questioning such matters made me a problem child and probably why I lost interest in my teachers, left school and became a shearer.   I got a bit excited when bullsvbears came along but he does not seem to want to answer either.  They seem to want to keep it all a mystery.   They do not want an old uncooth exshearer in Rome beautifying Mary, she looked pretty good in her day too, wasted as a Nun IMHO (not having a go at you there Nunn) but suppose she must have saved a lot to be a saint.  Rome is certainly getting a lot.

You know I have not had a drink today yet either.


----------



## Ruby (16 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> I don't think you get it Ruby.... Like I said 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
> People had different customs those days just as people around the world have different customs these days. Not wrong but different to what you and I are used to. Slaves were part and parcel of the ancient world and *Moses was in effect setting out the very foundations for law and order of the time*.




I am perfectly well aware that customs were different in those days.  You are not telling me anything new.  These people were just illiterate desert dwellers.   The fact still remains (and it is quite clear in the bible) that whoever wrote the bible condoned genocide, slavery, selling one's daughter, etc, and you are denying this fact.  What I said has nothing to do with customs of the day. 

Oh...... so it was *Moses *who was giving the law....    I thought it was god!!!!!   Now that is more realistic....... a *man *making laws for *mankind *to follow.



bullsvsbears said:


> ...... there is NOTHING atheism can do to change this fact.
> 
> ps.... I love it how all these little atheists come out of the closet when they are challenged!!!!




Please allow me to enlighten you.......


Atheism isn't trying to change any facts.  You haven't presented any.
You have not challenged me.  You cannot even present a coherent argument.
You do not know whether I am an atheist or not, and it is immaterial anyway.
I am not in any closet.  I have nothing to hide.


----------



## explod (16 October 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> wise fella that uncle of yours as my father actually knew a paddy and he said the same thing.
> 
> must be true but they were probably to pi$$ed to write it down in a book to make it credible.




Another excellent point there Nun, because my Uncle was Dad's favourite beer mate.

How the light shines on.

Had my first wine half an hour ago, cheers


----------



## motorway (16 October 2010)

> Dobzhansky, T. 1973. *Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
> Except in the Light of Evolution.*




Maybe It is Just Absolutely Nothing that makes sense..

Famous Essay 

http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/Dobzhansky.pdf

Motorway


----------



## wayneL (16 October 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> I think you will find you are mistaken.
> 
> it was Bon Scott( RIP) in the song" let there be rock"




Just to emphasize this simple truth:


----------



## bullsvsbears (17 October 2010)

Ruby, Ruby, Ruby
As you are obviously aware, God was in direct communication with Moses.
And by the way what has someone's place of abode got to do with their intelligence??
Love how you judge people for living in a desert. Bet a city slicker like you couldn't survive 1 day in a desert yet these people not only survived, they thrived!!!! The Pyramids were not built with modern machinery yet they still remain as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. These people were obviously extremely intelligent and anyone with half a brain should be able to figure that out.

You also assume that because God allowed genocide to occur then God doesn't exist. You obviously don't comprehend the bigger picture as to why this occurred. 

A farmer cultivates his crop with the expectation that he will reap the rewards for his efforts at harvest time. If weeds threaten that crop, does the farmer just stand by and let the weeds take over? Definitely not!!

God chose the Jewish nation to be his vessel by which the truth of his word would be proclaimed for generations to come. God knew in his infinite wisdom that the Jewish people were the most capable nation of that time to help fulfil his plans and he was spot on because the same message is relevant to all that acknowledge his existence today. Many nations opposed Israel and implicitly God’s plan for mankind in those times. God gave these nations ample warning and opportunity to change their ways before he chose to terminate their existence. God gives and takes away as he sees fit in order to fulfil his plans and this doesn't diminish his existence as you seem to assume.

 Gases, explosions and meteors crashing into the ground do not cut the mustard when it comes to explaining our existence. The question as to what happened after this is something science in all its wisdom will never come close to explaining. (Not in a million years) Even Ancient man from pyramid times would consider this to be the ultimate leap of faith!!


----------



## Boognish (18 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Ruby, Ruby, Ruby
> As you are obviously aware, God was in direct communication with Moses.
> And by the way what has someone's place of abode got to do with their intelligence??
> 
> ...




Any evidence for anything you've said here?  Anything verifiable?


----------



## Ruby (18 October 2010)

BVB, as I said before, you can't even present a coherent argument.







bullsvsbears said:


> And by the way what has someone's place of abode got to do with their intelligence??




I don't know.  I didn't mention intelligence.



bullsvsbears said:


> intelligence??
> The Pyramids were not built with modern machinery yet they still remain as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.




Quite correct, but the pyramids were built by the Egyptians, not a tribe of nomadic dessert dwellers.  Different people altogether.  Get your history correct.



bullsvsbears said:


> You also assume that because God allowed genocide to occur then God doesn't exist. You obviously don't comprehend the bigger picture as to why this occurred.




I made no such assumption.   Read my post - #66 if you need to remind yourself.

Perhaps you would like to explain the bigger picture?  In your explanation you might also like to answer the questions I asked - if you can.



bullsvsbears said:


> God knew in his infinite wisdom that the Jewish people were the most capable nation of that time to help fulfil his plans and he was spot on because the *same message is relevant to all that acknowledge his existence today*.




If that same message is relevant today, then what is the "message" conveyed by condoning slavery, incest, polygamy and genocide?  .....back to my original question!



bullsvsbears said:


> The question as to what happened after this is something* science in all its wisdom will never come close to explaining.* (Not in a million years)



Hmm!!........ another rather large assumption.  Even the most brilliant scientists on the planet would never go that far!!

You seem to be given to making sweeping generalisations and assumptions, with no supporting evidence, and claiming them as fact. Perhaps you should stick to what you know and stop using diversionary tactics.


----------



## bullsvsbears (18 October 2010)

Ruby,
"An intelligent person identifies tomato to be a fruit but it takes wisdom to know not to put it in fruit salad."
That's exactly what you're doing here by making childish statements about God condoning genocide. I think I made it quite clear as to why this occurred at the time but you keep trying to manipulate what I say to justify your predisposed perceptions of God.

Another example on how you play with words is denying your disparaging Jewish desert dweller undertones. Your true racist colors come out when you are put under the blow torch.

If God doesn't exist then why do you waste your time refuting his existence.
It shouldn't matter to you what I think but it obviously does!!!


----------



## bullsvsbears (18 October 2010)

Boognish said:


> Any evidence for anything you've said here?  Anything verifiable?




You'll have to wait until your dead and you can verify it for yourself.
Nothing, not even if God appeared to you today will obviously change your mind.


----------



## misterS (18 October 2010)

I'm more interested in the linked question of what a God wants from his creation.

Creating such an astounding universe primarily for the purposes of generating adoration would seem a curious (and to me, strange and unworthy) motivation and not really satisfactory from the standpoint of satisfying human curiosity.  

Of course, the Christian religions posit "free will" and this requires or provides a rationale why the existence of God must remain an article of faith and not proof.   Only a reckless few could deny or act contrary to the express wishes of a God whose existence was incontrovertible and he'd tend to be a bit more overtly interventionist as well.

Indeed, if adoration was the primary goal, then clear proof of existence would generate a bit more of it you would imagine. But that would be a pretty cheap thrill wouldnt it?  He would be a pretty complicated and intelligent entity, all things considered and omnipotence aside.

Therefore, if we say it is not adoration per se, or at a less hysterical level, full appreciation, then for what purpose has this God created us?  

It may have been to validate his own existence. Perhaps, prior to "creation", as the only tree falling in the forest, he just wanted someone to hear him.

That seems a fair enough proposition - maybe even an immortal and always existing and omnipresent God might start to feel a bit lonely? Or maybe, having created time and light for something to while away the pre-time and pre-weather equivalent of a wet afternoon, one thing just led to another? 

I find pondering what God wants out of creation a more interesting issue than trying to figure out how I might please that God by my personal behaviour, although the consideration of "right" and "wrong" as real choices in developing a moral compass tends to be a good thing, most would agree.

Humans have tended toward a compassionate and merciful style of God in the modern world anyway, which is just as well. 

Is there a God?  On balance, and mindful of cultural influences that predispose me to such an answer, I think there probably is.  I recall my daughter when she was about 4 years old said to me she thought there was a God, because what would be the point otherwise?  I thought that was both a fair call, and something which throughout history has been the principle motivation for humans to believe there is a creator.  Of course, there are other social benefits of cohesion and a civil society why being "good" is good. On that subject, you never hear of people doing bad things "for the general bad" do you?

Of course, the rub for people suffering and witnessing the terrible suffering of others (all of us), is why a merciful God would subject them to it?  Why are some children mistreated unto death? On the other side of the coin, why are there people who act in a way that is "evil" and yet suffer no adverse earthly consequence and, if they have no conscience, not even any mental qualms about their behaviour?

If there is a God, then it seems this would be either because there will be a terrible reckoning of some kind or because, despite advertising's assertion to the contrary, life is a rehearsal and there will be an eventual reconcilliation and everyone will become one, with the God.

Knowing the mind of God - now there is a thing.  Stephen Hawking wrote a book referring to that, but I don't know if he coined the phrase.  It struck me to wonder if the human mind is capable of such a condition.  I suppose if we are made in his image, then we can and we are each a part of God bound to return.  That would be quite nice and then we will know.


----------



## explod (18 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> If God doesn't exist then why do you waste your time refuting his existence.
> It shouldn't matter to you what I think but it obviously does!!!




It is not being refuted and it is being made clear that we do not know if he exists or not.

You seem to think that he exists so it is up to you to prove that.

It is well proven that our form and species evolved from more primitive species right back to just a few cells which started from chemical reactions of different matter.

Scientists recently were able to go further by showing that these matters are repeated throughout the universe.

However none of this is relevant in this debate.  If God exists (and he may) the writings in a book are not facts with proven continuity.   There is a story about Moses of which I am very familiar, but it is just that a story, the witnesses are not present to testify so we have to take the step to your faith to believe.   However belief is not a proof it is just an imprint into your consciousness which has nothing to do with a fact.   

Once apon a time I possessed this faith but then I read alternative historical books that offerred alternative scenarios to the bible stories.  These books may or may not be correct also but they did open my mind to looking into other possibilities.   The Darwin theories led me to my feelings, and faith if you like, in nature today. 

But to assert that there is a God who is beyond this life, though not impossible perhaps, I find highly unlikely on the evidence.

Faith on its own my friend just does not stand up and to teach it, especially to children before they are formally educated, is also wrong.

I rest my case on the fact that you, bullsvbears, do not seem to be able to comprehend actual reality.    Faith and belief are matters ingrained within the brain, usually by repetition (ie. the rosary) till it is embedded within the subconscious, and *in my view *borders on psychosis.


----------



## white_crane (18 October 2010)

Boognish said:


> Any evidence for anything you've said here?  Anything verifiable?






bullsvsbears said:


> You'll have to wait until your dead and you can verify it for yourself.
> Nothing, not even if God appeared to you today will obviously change your mind.




LOL, I guess that's a 'No' then.


----------



## Ruby (18 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> That's exactly what you're doing here by making childish statements about God condoning genocide. I think I made it quite clear as to why this occurred at the time but you keep trying to manipulate what I say to justify your predisposed perceptions of God.




Oh dear!  You are getting yourself tied up in knots!  If you go back to your post #70, you will see that you stated then that god did *not *condone genocide.  Which is it?

I posed a couple of questions - which you have not answered - and said nothing about my perceptions or beliefs.  You don't know what they are.



bullsvsbears said:


> Another example on how you play with words is denying your disparaging Jewish desert dweller undertones. Your true racist colors come out when you are put under the blow torch.




No -  not the least bit racist.  There was nothing disparaging in my remarks about a small tribe of people living in the desert 3,000 years ago.



bullsvsbears said:


> If God doesn't exist then why do you waste your time refuting his existence.
> It shouldn't matter to you what I think but it obviously does!!!




I haven't, and it doesn't.  I don't mind what you think or believe.  What I do mind - and hence my questions - is your claims that your beliefs are *facts*.

You clearly don't have any answers, so you are resorting to the cheap tactic of personal attack instead.


----------



## Ruby (18 October 2010)

explod said:


> It is not being refuted and it is being made clear that we do not know if he exists or not.
> 
> You seem to think that he exists so it is up to you to prove that.
> 
> ...




Thank you Explod, your views concur very much with my own.

I cannot say for certain that there is no god.  There is certainly no proof of one, but because there is still so much we don't know, my mind is open to the idea of a higher intelligence.   However, I do not believe in a personal god who controls or intervenes in our everyday lives.  That in my view is childish nonsense and raises more questions than it provides answers.

I grew up with strong religious beliefs but in adulthood began to question and eventually discard them.  Ever since I began to read widely on the subject I have learned more about the bible, religion in general, and different religions in particular from my non-religious standpoint than I ever learned during my religious phase; and with a far more objective outlook.


----------



## explod (18 October 2010)

Ruby said:


> Thank you Explod, your views concur very much with my own.
> 
> I cannot say for certain that there is no god.  There is certainly no proof of one, but because there is still so much we don't know, my mind is open to the idea of a higher intelligence.   However, I do not believe in a personal god who controls or intervenes in our everyday lives.  That in my view is childish nonsense and raises more questions than it provides answers.
> 
> I grew up with strong religious beliefs but in adulthood began to question and eventually discard them.  Ever since I began to read widely on the subject I have learned more about the bible, religion in general, and different religions in particular from my non-religious standpoint than I ever learned during my religious phase; and with a far more objective outlook.




Yes agree.  The one great legacy of my early Christian learning was the background it provided for wider study.   However we are but a few of the lucky ones and in my case by the skin of my teeth and a great deal of professional counselling required.

The damage done by imposing it on the young is a disgrace but, for example, with one in nine people in the US appealing to Jesus then we have a huge problem IMHO


----------



## Julia (18 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> If God doesn't exist then why do you waste your time refuting his existence.
> It shouldn't matter to you what I think but it obviously does!!!



Oh, the irony!   If you're so convinced God exists, why would you be feeling the need to prosletyze on, of all places, a stock forum?



misterS said:


> although the consideration of "right" and "wrong" as real choices in developing a moral compass tends to be a good thing, most would agree.



Certainly, but there's no need for religion here.  Human beings have evolved what is now an innate understanding of what's right and wrong imo, and do not depend on some religious instructions for guidance.



> I recall my daughter when she was about 4 years old said to me she thought there was a God, because what would be the point otherwise?



I don't understand your reasoning here.   Why does the notion of a God give point to our existence that would not otherwise exist?
You could extrapolate your point here to say that the existence of those human beings who are atheists or agnostics is 'pointless', and obviously that's quite unreasonable.

Philosophers have argued for ever about the point of human existence.
Might be a good topic for a separate thread.

Thanks for a thoughtful and interesting post, mister S.  Wish we had more like it.


----------



## misterS (19 October 2010)

"Quote:
I don't understand your reasoning here. Why does the notion of a God give point to our existence that would not otherwise exist?

You could extrapolate your point here to say that the existence of those human beings who are atheists or agnostics is 'pointless', and obviously that's quite unreasonable."

I wouldn't think that was a sustainable extrapolation. The point is that it's not the notion of a God, it's the existence of a God that would give existential meaning to life - well, human life.  The "notion" is just an idea. 

If life is an entirely random or "natural" event, without any "intelligent purpose" then nothing has any meaning outside the relativistic meaning that living humans give life during their brief span and perhaps our observation of the brief lives of others. 

In many respects that is an entirely awesome and meaningful thing in itself. But to me, it is simply how astounding and unlikely life is in objective terms that makes it necessary to prefer one of the metaphorical meanings, even before you consider how big the universe is and what we know of it (and earth for that matter) so far.  

The earth is teeming with life, from viruses and bacteria in our guts, to specialised and invisible critters living on your eyelids, to the existence of butterflies bearing every letter of the alphabet, to creatures living 6 kilometers under water or in boiling water, and yet our infant exploration of the universe shows it generally quite hostile to life and containing at least one gigantic cloud of alcohol 300 billion miles across.  Perhaps it is just as well that physics limits the speed of travel.


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2010)

Nice post explod.



> Perhaps it is just as well that physics limits the speed of travel.




Yes quite possibly so.
How would the human race like to become the "Chicken" of the universe bred for food!
Not many think of that possibility.I say keep very quiet!


----------



## Ruby (19 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Certainly, but there's no need for religion here.  Human beings have evolved what is now an innate understanding of what's right and wrong imo, and do not depend on some religious instructions for guidance.




Julia has made an important point here (and I am sure she is not the first to make it).  Human beings would *have *to have developed a moral code very early in their existence - long before any religions were thought of - otherwise they would not have survived.

Our cave-dwelling ancestors (BVB will no doubt say I am being racist again!!) lived in small goups, eking out an existence in an often hostile environment, while being at the constant mercy of the elements and predators.  In order to survive they needed to learn to look after and protect one another and to be considerate of one another.  From this they developed certain rules and customs which served to enhance their chances of survival and helped them to live in some sort of harmony.

Religious believers love to put it the other way around - claiming that religion gave us a moral code, and suggesting that without religion we would have none.  Every shred of logic and commonsense tells us this is not so.

Having a well-developed moral and ethical code is not proof that god exists.


----------



## nulla nulla (19 October 2010)

explod said:


> It is not being refuted and it is being made clear that we do not know if he exists or not.
> 
> You seem to think that he exists so it is up to you to prove that.
> 
> ...





Good post Explod, particularly the point... "Faith and belief are matters ingrained within the brain, usually by repetition till it is imbedded within the subconscious.."

Personally I find it odd that "God" is always portrayed as being male.


----------



## Ruby (19 October 2010)

tech/a said:


> Nice post explod.






nulla nulla said:


> Good post Explod.....




It sums up the essence of this thread very concisely.


----------



## pilots (19 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Good post Explod, particularly the point... "Faith and belief are matters ingrained within the brain, usually by repetition till it is imbedded within the subconscious.."
> 
> Personally I find it odd that "God" is always portrayed as being male.




NN, When I was working for the Americans to up set them all you had to say was, that what happens if we find out that god, is a she, and is black.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2010)

pilots said:


> NN, When I was working for the Americans to up set them all you had to say was, that what happens if we find out that god, is a she, and is black.




Well, it's just further proof that humans have anthropomorphized God.

If it exists, it is likely to transcend such boundaries as race and colour... and every other human trait.


----------



## bullsvsbears (19 October 2010)

white_crane said:


> LOL, I guess that's a 'No' then.




No is how you interpret it.

Can you prove to me that man landed on the moon or that September 11 occurred???


----------



## Boognish (19 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> No is how you interpret it.
> 
> Can you prove to me that man landed on the moon or that September 11 occurred???




We can reasonably deduce that those events did happen thanks to the acres of *evidence* that exists on these topics.


----------



## nulla nulla (19 October 2010)

Boognish said:


> We can reasonably deduce that those events did happen thanks to the acres of *evidence* that exists on these topics.




Well I believe 911 happened, the second plane was caught on film by the camera crews that came out after the first plane went in. Also the buildings collapsing was independently documented. 
As for the moon landing......a lot of inconsistancies in that one. Saw it on black and white television, believed it at the time. Now not so certain.


----------



## bullsvsbears (19 October 2010)

Boognish said:


> We can reasonably deduce that those events did happen thanks to the acres of *evidence* that exists on these topics.




Well according to this philosophy we can also reasonably deduce that the events of the bible were real and therefore God is real. I could present a million arguments or conspiracy theories to deny that man landed on the moon if I chose to be irrational and there's nothing you could say to prove anything. But this wouldn't reduce the likelyhood that this event occured.

Further to this, If I told you that an archiologist discovered fossilised stone arrow heads in an excavation dating back thousands of years would you then assume these arrow heads evolved from from the a stone??? Of course not! One can reasonably deduce that someone created these arrow heads.... Just because you haven't seen the creator doesn't mean he doesn' t exist. 
The evidence of creation is all around you.


----------



## bullsvsbears (19 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Well I believe 911 happened, the second plane was caught on film by the camera crews that came out after the first plane went in. Also the buildings collapsing was independently documented.
> As for the moon landing......a lot of inconsistancies in that one. Saw it on black and white television, believed it at the time. Now not so certain.




I know it happened but because I was't there to see it first hand I could chose to be irrational and deny this event occured. I would demand more evidence than footage alone.


----------



## DB008 (19 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> ...The evidence of creation is all around you.




...Like the Big Bang Theory?

I'm sorry, once l started to look at facts with "*science and creation*", l gave up on God. We are born, we live a life and we die. Simple. I guess that's why people ask, "Do you *believe *in GOD?" (believe being the word to focus on here!)


----------



## bullsvsbears (19 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Good post Explod, particularly the point... "Faith and belief are matters ingrained within the brain, usually by repetition till it is imbedded within the subconscious.."
> 
> Personally I find it odd that "God" is always portrayed as being male.




So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
> I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.




Evolution is a proven fact.
It is not a faith.
To believe in a god one needs faith.
Stark reality is an impossible pill to swallow for those who desperately need a reason for existing.
To be a fluke in nature just as all living organisms are is in comprehensible to most.
Enjoy this existance B and B it will pass you buy faster than you think!


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2010)

tech/a said:


> Evolution is a proven fact.




It is??

I think it's pretty evident that there has been a progression of organisms (IMO), call it evolution if you will. In this sense evolution is fact; but the exact mechanism is hotly disputed, even amongst evolutionists.

For instance, faced with the above, religionistas may claim that God caused evolution to happen. This cannot be disproven. In this sense, the exact mechanism of evolution, remains in the realms of hypothesis.

IOW there is much about the theory of evolution that is not testable and ergo, speculative.


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> It is??
> 
> I think it's pretty evident that there has been a progression of organisms (IMO), call it evolution if you will. In this sense evolution is fact; but the exact mechanism is hotly disputed, even amongst evolutionists.
> 
> ...




As this could be discussed infinitum I will stand corrected on the stone cold fact issue.


----------



## Sean K (19 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.




Your science teaching should have been teaching the truth from Genesis Ch2:


19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
26 And man and wife played hide the sausage, to create mankind.
27 And God said that it was a bloody good show.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 October 2010)

Kennas have you read Michael Tellinger's book Slave Species or other writings?


----------



## Ruby (19 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Well according to this philosophy we can also reasonably deduce that the events of the bible were real and therefore God is real.




No, that is not a reasonable deduction.  I could write a book about the fairies at the bottom of my garden, but that does not make them real.  Biblical scholars now have a lot of *evidence *which suggests the bible was written by many disparate people, and the first written recordings date from around 1,000BC - at the time of the book of Kings.   This is about 2,000 years after the purported events of the early part of the old testament.  An oral tradition handed down for that length of time bears little resemblance to the truth.   If you don't believe me, do some reading on the cargo cults of the 1940's and 1950's, and on a person called John Frum who is revered as a god in some parts of the south Pacific.  (This is documented *fact *and there are people alive today who belong to this cult.)  You will see how easily truth becomes distorted -and this is less than 100 years ago.



bullsvsbears said:


> So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
> I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.




Evolution is not just a "so called theory that some lecturer believed in", it is supported by a massive weight of *evidence * which is being added to daily, and is believed in by most reputable scientists.  Furthermore, a "theory" is not just an "idea", it is a proposition which is put forward only after a large body of evidence has led to its formulation.  (Not well expressed - perhaps someone in the scientific commumity can do better.)


----------



## Julia (19 October 2010)

How about we take a couple of steps back, bullsvs bears, and you share with us (I love that caring, sharing stuff) what your biblical beliefs actually do for your daily life?

Because isn't this what it really all comes down to?  Don't we choose our beliefs for the happiness or comfort they confer on our tedious daily existence?
Or perhaps our future if we believe in life after death in order to make dying less frightening?

How about dropping the adversarial approach, and engaging in a genuine explanation of how your religion benefits your existence.

To do so would be to present yourself as someone genuinely engaged with their religious beliefs, as distinct from an internet troll looking for an argument.


----------



## spooly74 (19 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> It is??



Yes.
Btw, anyone got a good definition of what 'life' is?


> I think it's pretty evident that there has been a progression of organisms (IMO), call it evolution if you will. In this sense evolution is fact; but the exact mechanism is hotly disputed, even amongst evolutionists.



That mechanism is called abiogenisis, like it or not. 
For me, it's QED. We're here.
Some Billions of years ago, if we could travel back to a stereotypical 'pond scum' and test it's properties, we could categorically say, that is not 'life'. 
Then, some millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years later on a return trip, we could test it and categorically say, that is 'life'. 
Is there any better hypothesis out there?

But, anyway, why stop at an ordinary rock from an ordinary sun? What's to ground us here?
Every cell in our bodies (bar hydrogen?) was manufactured inside a star.
That takes time. 
The fact that we exist requires the Universe to be old, and it is.



> IOW there is much about the theory of evolution that is not testable and ergo, speculative.



Evolution says nothing on the origin of life.
There is no evidence against the evolution of life.



			
				bullsvbears said:
			
		

> So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
> I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in



You have no idea what a theory is.
You're just a village *ID*iot.


----------



## brty (19 October 2010)

There is a little something here about the 'theory' of evolution..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I particularly like the opening comments...



> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.




It is usually very hard to get religious nuts to comment on, or for that matter to mention evolution, after they see there is science behind it.

brty


----------



## sails (19 October 2010)

Julia said:


> How about we take a couple of steps back, bullsvs bears, and you share with us (I love that caring, sharing stuff) what your biblical beliefs actually do for your daily life?
> 
> Because isn't this what it really all comes down to?  Don't we choose our beliefs for the happiness or comfort they confer on our tedious daily existence?
> Or perhaps our future if we believe in life after death in order to make dying less frightening?...




I think your comments are spot on, Julia.  

I also get a little tired of people (most likely well meaning) that try to force their religious ideas on to other people.  Theological discussions rarely do more than further evolve into arguments.  Perhaps that's what the good book means when it tells us that "the letter of the law kills but the spirit gives life".

Although I had a strict religious upbringing, I have since questioned many of the values I was taught and have listened with an open mind to those with opposing views.  As a result, I have dropped off a lot of tradition but kept what I believe is valuable.  This does not mean I am perfect and am not protected from my fair share of the roller coasters of life.  However, faith in God does help through the rough times and I have been humbled on several occasions where I have felt that God was no where to be found in times of despair only to find that, when the time was right, unexpected relief would come often above and beyond for that which had been hoped.

"Religion" without the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control) usually becomes nothing but an empty organisation and often a controlling and negative force on other people's lives.

The popularity of these types of threads is always interesting.  Is it because we have a God consciousness within us that is somehow looking for fulfilment?  

The good book also tells us that if we seek we shall find.  I think those that sincerely want to find God will do so and will experience an overwhelming sense of peace that has nothing to do with arguments and proof.

Not sure if that makes any sense - it's just my  FWIW...


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2010)

spooly74 said:


> Yes.
> Btw, anyone got a good definition of what 'life' is?
> 
> That mechanism is called abiogenisis, like it or not.
> ...




I don't know if there is a better one or not, but it remains a hypothesis. Hypothesis is not proof, it's educated speculation.

It is a tremendous leap to claim proof, no matter how convinced you are



> But, anyway, why stop at an ordinary rock from an ordinary sun? What's to ground us here?
> Every cell in our bodies (bar hydrogen?) was manufactured inside a star.
> That takes time.
> The fact that we exist requires the Universe to be old, and it is.
> ...




I am not arguing against evolution at, just that their are enormous gaps. We know for certain, certain things, but the gaps must be filled via hypothesis. Some people hypothesize things that others find ridiculous, c'est la vie.


----------



## Twiddle (20 October 2010)

Just a reminder, in scientific parlance "Theory" means; an explanatory framework for a collection of factual observations. 

A theory carries the highest form of credibility available to science.  It is very different to how we use the term "theory" in day to day life.

That life evolves is an observed fact.
That natural selection is a mechanism for change is an observed fact.

Whether or not natural selection is the "only" cause of evolutionary change is debated somewhat. However it is a gross misrepresentation to claim there is any real controversy over natural selection in the biological sciences.


----------



## spooly74 (20 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I don't know if there is a better one or not, but it remains a hypothesis. Hypothesis is not proof, it's educated speculation.
> 
> It is a tremendous leap to claim proof, no matter how convinced you are



IMO the direct proof of abigenesis is that we are here today. We know that life occured at least once. 
It's the mechanism that remains out of reach, but the absence of proof is not proof of absence.

There are only two proposed alternatives.
1. Steady State Universe - Life has always existed. Observation proves this to be false.
2. A supernatural power created life around the same time the Universe was creating the elements in our bodies today.

Anything else is abiogenesis.



> I am not arguing against evolution at, just that their are enormous gaps. We know for certain, certain things, but the gaps must be filled via hypothesis. Some people hypothesize things that others find ridiculous, c'est la vie.



 'Enormous gaps' like the dino to bird myth  No, seriously?


----------



## Boognish (20 October 2010)

Where are all the crocoducks?


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2010)

spooly74 said:


> 'Enormous gaps' like the dino to bird myth  No, seriously?




Is that a straw man argument?

If not, what is the relevance of the dino to bird myth?

If so, why immediately resort to argumentative fallacy?


----------



## derty (20 October 2010)

It's not really clear what gaps you are referring to wayneL, which is probably why assumptions are being made.

Are you talking of gaps in the understanding of the mechanisms that drive evolution or are you talking of gaps in the fossil record?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 October 2010)

What about Atlantis and the underwater man made constructions near Okinawa at Yonoguni? Were they made by the evolution humans or the creationist humans?


----------



## explod (20 October 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What about Atlantis and the underwater man made constructions near Okinawa at Yonoguni? Were they made by the evolution humans or the creationist humans?




Not sure if you are trying us on here SP, but either way, their belief system and what they may have made/created has no bearing on existence, or how we evolved.  At most the artifacts attributed to Atlantis are not more that 5 to 6,000 years old (just off the cuff from memory).   If it took a billion years from the first two cells to get together to make the first bug that could wriggle then that is a very short time.

In fact our conscious presence at this time on this earth has little to do with who is God, and is or is he not, a pre-existing immortal who can just think his way around the universe.

Of course if there is such a God then the argumant would be entirely different, so perhaps by this deduction you are with him SP.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 October 2010)

explod said:


> Not sure if you are trying us on here SP, but either way, their belief system and what they may have made/created has no bearing on existence, or how we evolved.  At most the artifacts attributed to Atlantis are not more that 5 to 6,000 years old (just off the cuff from memory).   If it took a billion years from the first two cells to get together to make the first bug that could wriggle then that is a very short time.
> 
> In fact our conscious presence at this time on this earth has little to do with who is God, and is or is he not, a pre-existing immortal who can just think his way around the universe.
> 
> Of course if there is such a God then the argumant would be entirely different, so perhaps by this deduction you are with him SP.




Explod,

My questions are genuine. I recently watch Hitchens talking about the topic which has piqued my interest. 

Your comments above on consciousness are interesting, though I cannot accept a human descriptiveness as a descriptiveness for the topic.

Cheers..


----------



## bullsvsbears (20 October 2010)

Ruby said:


> No, that is not a reasonable deduction.  I could write a book about the fairies at the bottom of my garden, but that does not make them real.  Biblical scholars now have a lot of *evidence *which suggests the bible was written by many disparate people, and the first written recordings date from around 1,000BC - at the time of the book of Kings.   This is about 2,000 years after the purported events of the early part of the old testament.  An oral tradition handed down for that length of time bears little resemblance to the truth.   If you don't believe me, do some reading on the cargo cults of the 1940's and 1950's, and on a person called John Frum who is revered as a god in some parts of the south Pacific.  (This is documented *fact *and there are people alive today who belong to this cult.)  You will see how easily truth becomes distorted -and this is less than 100 years ago.
> 
> Back up what you say with facts here!
> 
> Evolution is not just a "so called theory that some lecturer believed in", it is supported by a massive weight of *evidence * which is being added to daily, and is believed in by most reputable scientists.  Furthermore, a "theory" is not just an "idea", it is a proposition which is put forward only after a large body of evidence has led to its formulation.  (Not well expressed - perhaps someone in the scientific commumity can do better.)





Massive weight of evidence???? or was it force fed down your throat at school when you were young and impressionable only to become fact?? There is no massive evidence supporting evolution but massive gap filling theories. Science has gone too far down the evolution track to admit it is wrong and many so called learned people make good money preaching such theories.


----------



## derty (20 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Massive weight of evidence???? or was it force fed down your throat at school when you were young and impressionable only to become fact?? There is no massive evidence supporting evolution but massive gap filling theories. Science has gone too far down the evolution track to admit it is wrong and many so called learned people make good money preaching such theories.



I call Poe.


----------



## nunthewiser (20 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> and many so called learned people make good money preaching such theories.




Benny Hinn etc etc etc


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Massive weight of evidence???? or was it force fed down your throat at school when you were young and impressionable only to become fact??




There is a fair dose of irony in that statement.


----------



## Sean K (20 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> There is a fair dose of irony in that statement.



Maybe no irony. 

Maybe....


----------



## bullsvsbears (20 October 2010)

Julia said:


> How about we take a couple of steps back, bullsvs bears, and you share with us (I love that caring, sharing stuff) what your biblical beliefs actually do for your daily life?
> 
> Because isn't this what it really all comes down to?  Don't we choose our beliefs for the happiness or comfort they confer on our tedious daily existence?
> Or perhaps our future if we believe in life after death in order to make dying less frightening?
> ...




Thanks Julia, I truly take my hat off to this post. (No sarcasm here)

It may come as a suprise but I was an atheist at one time and I understand the irrational aggressive approach atheists take when confronted with someone who believes in God. Thus, I have chosen to be confrontational rather than be submissive. Maybe it's the old atheist coming of of me (lol)

Like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. I would beat down anyone who acknowledged God's existence and challenge their intelligence. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

My life now has true purpose and I have an inner peace that only came when I got to know God. Yes I still have ambitions to better myself but I don't place my happiness on my achievements. If one is honest with themselves they will admit that we are chasing shadows when we place our hope in material wealth or pleasures...it's just like a bottomless pit that one can never fill. Only God can give you that inner fulfillment and I came to realise this when I decided to leave my atheistic ways and acknowledge his existence. 

I am happy to admit that I'm much, much happier now...and no I don't troll the internet looking for arguments! -That is what I used to do. I became a member of this forum because I have an interest in the stock market just like I assume every other member here does. I stumbled across this thread and was bemused why someone would create a 'do you believe in God?' thread via a stock discussion forum.


----------



## nunthewiser (20 October 2010)

I read this on my facebook page, so i reckon its as valid as any other proof out there.

please close your eyes if you are easily offended.



> The priest asks Johnny if he's not scared of meeting Satan. Little Johnny says "You are the one that must be scared; you talk **** about him every Sunday."


----------



## Julia (20 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Thanks Julia, I truly take my hat off to this post. (No sarcasm here)
> 
> It may come as a suprise but I was an atheist at one time and I understand the irrational aggressive approach atheists take when confronted with someone who believes in God. Thus, I have chosen to be confrontational rather than be submissive. Maybe it's the old atheist coming of of me (lol).......................



Thank you for the explanation which is appreciated.

Can you say whether any life changing event was involved at any stage?
e.g. I know people who have come to a belief in a God after their life was saved in an accident etc?

Could it be that, as we all are, you were looking for some intrinsic meaning to your life, and eventually felt that if you could believe in a God then you'd found that point to your existence?

I'm genuinely interested, and am not at all ridiculing something on the basis that I don't happen to share such a belief.


----------



## spooly74 (21 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Is that a straw man argument?
> 
> If not, what is the relevance of the dino to bird myth?
> 
> If so, why immediately resort to argumentative fallacy?




No, just a silly response regarding a thread here. I'm not for one minute suggesting you're claiming that particular 'gap', but rarther, as derty pointed out, genuinley interested in what the 'enoumous gaps' are.


----------



## Twiddle (21 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Massive weight of evidence???? or was it force fed down your throat at school when you were young and impressionable only to become fact??




If you want to involve yourself in debate over the authors of the bible, please do some reading by biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman would be a good place to start.

With research you will find that even the best christian scholars admit we plainly have no idea who wrote the gospels. Each gospel has a different slant (For example Mark is gnostic in tone) and there are many discrepancies between them over minor and major details.



bullsvsbears said:


> There is no massive evidence supporting evolution but massive gap filling theories.




The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that to make such a statement only betrays your ignorance.

I wonder how many books written by evolutionary biologists you have read?

If you are interested in becoming educated, and therefore earning the right to be respected when you engage in conversation about evolution I would suggest reading the following:

-Evolution, what the fossils say and why it matters - Donald Prothero
-Why evolution is true - Jerry Coyne
-The making of the fittest - Sean B Carroll
-Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA - Daniel J Fairbanks
-Your inner fish - Neil Shubin



bullsvsbears said:


> Science has gone too far down the evolution track to admit it is wrong and many so called learned people make good money preaching such theories.




Wow, you really need to educate yourself on how the scientific method works as a whole.

Science is all about falsifying hypotheses. In other words trying to disprove an hypothesis. Only once a hypothesis is proven to be robust, and falsification attempts have failed, then it is accepted.

To give a simple example, if the fossil of a recent mammal, for example humans, was found in a strata below dinosaurs or any other animal which is much older on the evolutionary scale, then instantly evolution would be falsified.

After 150 years of falsification attempts by millions of scientists worldwide, evolution still stands as a robust theory.

One of the greatest achievements a scientist can make in their career, is to show that an accepted piece of knowledge in science is wrong. There are literally millions of people who would LOVE to falsify evolutionary theory, it would mean fame and fortune. However evolution remains to this day one of the most evidenced and strongest theories in all of science.


----------



## explod (21 October 2010)

They can say all they like about my ramblings; but

your post Twiddle, is spot on, excellent and I take my hat off to your academic insights and knowledge.


----------



## Ruby (21 October 2010)

Twiddle, Thank you for that clear and rational post.


----------



## bullsvsbears (21 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Thank you for the explanation which is appreciated.
> 
> Can you say whether any life changing event was involved at any stage?
> e.g. I know people who have come to a belief in a God after their life was saved in an accident etc?
> ...




No life changing event but as I said in my previous post, the question of whether God exists really bothered me. I came to the realisation that it's rather dumb for me to oppose something unless I have a good grasp of what I am opposing. This led me to the bible and I began reading it with an open mind. Initially I found it difficult to comprehend however after spending a considerable amount of time, I realised that the message revealed through the bible can penetrate even the most hardened person like myself. I particularly focused on the four Gospels of the New Testament and did some research. l discovered that all four gospels were written by different authors at different locations.  The message conveyed in all four Gospels was remarkably similar with only minor inconsistencies (ie one gospel claims the **** crowed twice and another tells us it crowed three times) The fact that these inconsistencies occurred gave me further clues to the bible's authenticity as it eliminated the possibility of plagiarism between authors and this gave the message credibility.

There were also many historians (particularly Romans) that independently confirmed Christ's existence. The fact many historians unequivocally accept the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar gave further evidence to  Christs' existence due to the weight of historical accounts being far greater for Christ.  


One thing Julia, we will all agree on is that unfortunately many religious denominations and some so called Christians have degraded God's word by their actions/inactions. However this is not a negative reflection on God's word but rather a sad indictment on human nature. That's why it is so important to know what you believe in so that the other people's failings don't affect you. Christ's message had no human agendas but he preached a message of love and salvation. He also left humanity with a moral code of ethics by which we should all strive to abide by and this would make it a far nicer world to live in. Our freedom of choice unfortunately sometimes takes us down a different path.

I could go on and on but I think I have said enough..... also, my wife & children are are starting to feel neglected


----------



## bullsvsbears (21 October 2010)

Twiddle said:


> If you want to involve yourself in debate over the authors of the bible, please do some reading by biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman would be a good place to start.
> 
> With research you will find that even the best christian scholars admit we plainly have no idea who wrote the gospels. Each gospel has a different slant (For example Mark is gnostic in tone) and there are many discrepancies between them over minor and major details.
> 
> ...




If you believe in evolution which you obviously do, have you contemplated the possibility that maybe God created all living species to evolve? The question still remains: how did man and and the millions of living creatures in our world evolve from dust? This is the question which science cannot give a definative answer.

Ps..After more than 2000 years of falsification attempts nobody has proved that God doesn't exist


----------



## roland (21 October 2010)

As science discoveries build better pictures of our evolutionary history the religious leaders adjust their standing to suit.

There was a time when people, such as the likes of Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin and others, where labelled by the church as heretics. 

From originally discounting any notion of evolution to now embracing it as GOD's work is really the only logical path for the religious "power brokers".


----------



## Twiddle (21 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> No life changing event but as I said in my previous post, the question of whether God exists really bothered me. I came to the realisation that it's rather dumb for me to oppose something unless I *have a good grasp of what I am opposing.*




This paragraph is utterly comical when considering your puerile and ignorant objections to evolution.

You have a good grasp of evolution do you?

Without using google or a creationist website how about answering me these questions to show you have a good grasp of evolution.

1.) L-Gulano-Gamma-Lactone-Oxidase - Why is this enzyme important in the evidence for evolution?

2.) What is puntuacted equilibrium? (This is a very easy one)

3.) Why is the term "sleeping beauty" a triumph for evolution?

4.) Why does DNA anlysis of the now extinct Thylacine (tasmanian tiger) show it to be part of the Dasyuromorphia clade, when it clearly resembles a wolf more than the other types of marsupials in Australia where it is found?

5.) What are the three common types of mutations that bring about functional changes in DNA? Importantly, in one of the types, how is redundancy built which may enable further mutation accumulations to be expressed at a later date?

6.) Describe the rammifications of evo devo with respect to morphological changes and how it differs from the classic view of functional gene mutation.

7.) Desribe a geological event which would give rise to selective pressures where varying physcial traits will increase fitness. Furthermore describe the basis of natural selection from a genes eye view.

Provide good answers to these questions and it will mean one of two things.

a.) You have at least a cursory understanding of a fraction of the scientific evidence for evolution.

b.) You have googled the terms.

I very much doubt a, if b, at least it will do you good to gain some knowledge.




bullsvsbears said:


> This led me to the bible and I began reading it with an open mind. Initially I found it difficult to comprehend however after spending a considerable amount of time, I realised that the message revealed through the bible can penetrate even the most hardened person like myself.




No objections here. Of course the message if powerful. Why do you think it is still around, and the most popular of all religions?

Under its premises you get:
-eternal life
-an imaginary friend who grants your wishes
-your enemies punished

It appeals to powerful base human instincts; fear, greed, paternal/maternal instincts.

I and many other Atheists would love it to be true. I spent the majority of my life thinking it was true. But eventually reality clawed me away from the comfort Christianity brings.

I honestly wish it were true... 




bullsvsbears said:


> I particularly focused on the four Gospels of the New Testament and did some research. l discovered that all four gospels were written by different authors at different locations.  The message conveyed in all four Gospels was remarkably similar with only minor inconsistencies (ie one gospel claims the **** crowed twice and another tells us it crowed three times)




This is one of the many, and a very minor one at that.

Others include to name a few;

-Different people being a Jesus' tomb, different between all gospels. 

-No reference to Jesus being a god in Mark, and saying "why have you forsaken me" then dying. As apposed to the other accounts.

-Matthew blatantly plagarising the prior gospels and writing to obviously try and fullfil prophecy. E.G Jesus ridiculously entering a town on a Ass and a foal at the same time on palm sunday.

-The story of Jesus and the prostitute, cast the first stone, blatantly added at a later date in another language by a scribe.

-The day Jesus gets crucified if discrepant. Passover feast, day of etc.

These are but a few, I cannot be bothered listing more. Do yourself a favour and read some real biblical scholarship/textual criticism.



bullsvsbears said:


> The fact that these inconsistencies occurred gave me further clues to the bible's authenticity as it eliminated the possibility of plagiarism between authors and this gave the message credibility.




Interesting.

In a book inspired by the almighty and perfect all powerful god, you EXPECT mistakes?

One other explantion could be that the stories were passed down to people, and as such inconsistencies arose. We all know that humans have different views and like to put their own slant on things.

In fact if the bible is just the work of many different writers not inspired by god, you could sensibly make the prediction that it would contain inconsistencies. Interesting then that it does...

Do you really think it More plausible that God ordained a book to be riddled with inconsistencies and illogical doctrines. Not to mention doctrines that were to be utterly ignored at a later date. E.G 

-Stone your neighbour to death if he works on the sabbath. - Numbers 15:32-36

-The smell of burning flesh pleases god. - Exodus 29:17-19

I won't bother listing the hundreds of bible verses which speak of genocide, condoned rape, slavery, human sacrifice etc.

Old testament you cry? Irrelevant, but OK here is some new testament ones for you.

-Give away all you own and follow christ. - Matthew 19:21

-Woman shall not speak in church. - 1 Corinthians 14:33-38

It has always baffled me how people still claim to be christians yet ignore the words of their god. 

How many christians really give away all they own and rely on their god to provide?

And how many people pay attention to the blatantly sexist nature of scripture?




bullsvsbears said:


> There were also many historians (particularly Romans) that independently confirmed Christ's existence. The fact many historians unequivocally accept the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar gave further evidence to  Christs' existence due to the weight of historical accounts being far greater for Christ.




Utter Rubbish. 

Provide evidence please.

And dont bother with josephus. It is widely accepted the testimony in flavianum is a Chrisitan forgery, even by many Christians.




bullsvsbears said:


> One thing Julia, we will all agree on is that unfortunately many religious denominations and some so called Christians have degraded God's word by their actions/inactions. However this is not a negative reflection on God's word but rather a sad indictment on human nature. That's why it is so important to know what you believe in so that the other people's failings don't affect you. Christ's message had no human agendas but he preached a message of love and salvation. He also left humanity with a moral code of ethics by which we should all strive to abide by and this would make it a far nicer world to live in. Our freedom of choice unfortunately sometimes takes us down a different path.




One would have to wonder where this sinful nature comes from if god created us. 

Free will you say? 

Then why is it not a 50 - 50 proposition? Why do we lean to the side of "sin"? What prods us in the direction of sin? 

We were created by a perfect creature after all, right?

Your god makes no sense.

BTW I hope you are here trying to steer us heathens away from investing/trading, and not interested in it yourself, after all... 

_But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."_ - Mark 24 - 25


----------



## bellenuit (21 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Ps..After more than 2000 years of falsification attempts nobody has proved that God doesn't exist




I hope you don't see that as an argument for the existence of God! Apart from logical contradictions, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the non-existence of anything.  At best one can declare that it is highly unlikely that something doesn't exist, but it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

To this day, nobody has proved that Zeus, the supreme god of the Olympians, doesn't exist. Nor for that matter Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.

As mentioned thousands of times before, the onus is on those who claim something exists to prove it, not on others to disprove it.


----------



## Julia (21 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> No life changing event but as I said in my previous post, the question of whether God exists really bothered me. I came to the realisation that it's rather dumb for me to oppose something unless I have a good grasp of what I am opposing. This led me to the bible and I began reading it with an open mind. Initially I found it difficult to comprehend however after spending a considerable amount of time, I realised that the message revealed through the bible can penetrate even the most hardened person like myself. I particularly focused on the four Gospels of the New Testament and did some research. l discovered that all four gospels were written by different authors at different locations.  The message conveyed in all four Gospels was remarkably similar with only minor inconsistencies (ie one gospel claims the **** crowed twice and another tells us it crowed three times) The fact that these inconsistencies occurred gave me further clues to the bible's authenticity as it eliminated the possibility of plagiarism between authors and this gave the message credibility.



Thank you for the detailed response, bvb.  I accept that you say all you do from a position of genuine belief and I respect that.

But for that belief to have its credibility based on, e.g. the fact that the **** is supposed to have crowed one time more in a different gospel account just seems to me to be utterly illogical.  How does a disparity in various accounts of the same event offered in the Bible mean that it's the word of God.  I'd have thought the opposite to be true.

I'm really not trying to be disparaging or to in any way ridicule your beliefs, but your statement above simply seems to me to be a rationalisation of seeing what you want to see.

We all commonly seek to find in any texts a reinforcement of our existing beliefs.  I acknowledge I do this myself.  I will more readily read commentary which supports my intrinsic belief than the opposing point of view.


> There were also many historians (particularly Romans) that independently confirmed Christ's existence. The fact many historians unequivocally accept the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar gave further evidence to  Christs' existence due to the weight of historical accounts being far greater for Christ.



I don't think anyone on this thread has specifically doubted the existence of the person known as Jesus Christ.  But it's the assertion that he was 'the son of God' etc that is rather more lacking in evidence.
Even the Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ, as do e.g. the Mormons, but only Christians as far as I know insist he is 'the son of God' whatever that means.



> One thing Julia, we will all agree on is that unfortunately many religious denominations and some so called Christians have degraded God's word by their actions/inactions. However this is not a negative reflection on God's word but rather a sad indictment on human nature. That's why it is so important to know what you believe in so that the other people's failings don't affect you.



No argument from me on the latter part of this statement.  However, as already stated, I don't believe it is necessary to be attached to any religious beliefs to hold a decent set of human behaviours.



> Christ's message had no human agendas but he preached a message of love and salvation.



Um, salvation from what exactly?   Can you explain how this works?



> He also left humanity with a moral code of ethics by which we should all strive to abide by and this would make it a far nicer world to live in. Our freedom of choice unfortunately sometimes takes us down a different path.



This has been addressed ad infinitum on this and other threads.  We do not need a religious affiliation to be capable of distinguishing a decent code of human behaviour.


----------



## Twiddle (21 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> If you believe in evolution which you obviously do, have you contemplated the possibility that maybe God created all living species to evolve? The question still remains: how did man and and the millions of living creatures in our world evolve from dust? This is the question which science cannot give a definative answer.




No scientist says life evolved from dust.

Once again this is a straw man agrument on your part.

Abiogenesis is clearly a very complex subject, I don't think any reasonable person can expect a complete answer at this stage when we are only 60 years on from Watson and Crick discovering the structure of DNA, and only 10 years on from mapping the human genome.

However, advancements are made every day, for example;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101005171032.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101008121348.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101004151725.htm

Three articles from just october alone in the popular press. Not scientific journals... 

Recently you may have heard Craig Venter created a synthetic living organism. Exciting stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A




bullsvsbears said:


> Ps..After more than 2000 years of falsification attempts nobody has proved that God doesn't exist




You have it backwards. The burden of proof is with the person making the claim.

I will break it down for you.

Two claims; 

a.) Evolution happens.

b.) Yahweh a singular god who sacrificed himself to himself, impregnated a virgin, and drowned all of humanity to have the earth repopulated by incest, exists.


Hypothesis for claim a:

 If life forms change over time, we would expect to see evidence in the fossils we observe in the different strata of the earth. The older strata being deep the newer being close to the surface. 

Fossil forms should:
-Change over time
-Be laid down in a sequence from simple to complex.
-Feature fossils which contain traits intermediary to distinct species.

Attempt to gain evidence/falsify claim a:
This is what we observe. And this is evidence for the claim. 

Furthermore this has NOT been falsified.

(Please note fossil evidence is only a tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution, I use it because it is perhaps the easiest evidence to understand)

Hypothesis for claim b: 

If god exists the way the bible says, then God answers prayer.

Attempt to gain evidence/falsiy claim b:
-Prayer studies have been done, which show prayer is not answered.

In the largest study ever undertaken it was shown intercessory prayer does not work.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html

Furthermore, you could pray right now for god to appear in your room, and I guarantee it would not happen. This is not evidence against because god may just be averse to appearing, but it certainly is not evidence FOR god.

So we have at least one hypothesis falsified, we could say that with current evidence it seems that if god exists he does not answer prayer, furthermore since the bible says that he does, perhaps the bible if not true.

Is this enough to rule out a god? Of course not... However, as you can see in the evidence stakes we have a logical reason to tentatively accept proposition a, but not b. Evidence is required for prop b - god exists. Until evidence is provided it is in the same boat as any other claim without evidence.


----------



## easylikesunday (21 October 2010)

The only thing I don't understand is that with all the power "GOD'' has (so we're told) and the magical healing abilities all these ''Saints'' are claimed to have (Well done Mary!) why haven't any of them performed any miracles on any amputees? 
Are they a product of Satan?? or is it just scientifically impossible? 

They can cure cancer, restore sight, mend a sore back all while reaping the benefits of being all holy and magical but when it comes to Mr One Leg he misses out!
Cant they at least give someone a finger? C'mon!
Chopper is still waiting for his ears too!! 

..God?

Evolution for me thanks. I'd rather be brainwashed by a stripper


----------



## pilots (22 October 2010)

easylikesunday said:


> The only thing I don't understand is that with all the power "GOD'' has (so we're told) and the magical healing abilities all these ''Saints'' are claimed to have (Well done Mary!) why haven't any of them performed any miracles on any amputees?
> Are they a product of Satan?? or is it just scientifically impossible?
> 
> They can cure cancer, restore sight, mend a sore back all while reaping the benefits of being all holy and magical but when it comes to Mr One Leg he misses out!
> ...




Next time you are going to be brain washed could I come with you as I find church very boring.


----------



## explod (22 October 2010)

> Twiddle:
> 
> Abiogenesis is clearly a very complex subject, I don't think any reasonable person can expect a complete answer at this stage when we are only 60 years on from Watson and Crick discovering the structure of DNA, and only 10 years on from mapping the human genome.




Mankind has always needed the comfort of understanding, in the beginning perhaps the meaning of moon overhead at night.   Spirituality, dreaming and fairy tales fill in the gaps and satisfy that need at the base level when the eyes open and the brain kicks in.

Some of us are allowed the freedom to move beyond the tales and measure things for themselves.

Great input again Twiddle, just love checking out the latest posts.


----------



## tech/a (22 October 2010)

> Spirituality, dreaming and fairy tales fill in the gaps and satisfy that need at the base level when the eyes open and the brain kicks in.




That 2Kg of mass is the difference between us and the rest of life.
We KNOW what we are.
Also makes us the most dangerous thing on the planet.

This God character has a lot to answer for---just ask a whale!


----------



## Twiddle (22 October 2010)

explod said:


> Mankind has always needed the comfort of understanding, in the beginning perhaps the meaning of moon overhead at night.   Spirituality, dreaming and fairy tales fill in the gaps and satisfy that need at the base level when the eyes open and the brain kicks in.
> 
> Some of us are allowed the freedom to move beyond the tales and measure things for themselves.




Completely agree explod.


----------



## Logique (22 October 2010)

Twiddle said:


> ...need to educate yourself on how the scientific method works as a whole.
> Science is all about falsifying hypotheses. In other words trying to disprove an hypothesis. Only once a hypothesis is proven to be robust, and falsification attempts have failed, then it is accepted...



Love hearing this kind of stuff. Great post Twiddle. I also think Explod is on the money in the post above.

To the question does God exist? My answer would be ..define God.


----------



## tech/a (22 October 2010)

Logique said:


> My answer would be ..define God.




My answer everything.--Thats all it can be.


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2010)

Logique said:


> To the question does God exist? My answer would be ..define God.




This is the best and most interesting question IMO.

Why? Because most people are stuck in the binary proposition of either a Godless evolution, or a God in the Christian (or whatever) model, with no consideration of the infinite number of possibilities in between.



			
				tech/a said:
			
		

> My answer everything.--Thats all it can be.




And a most interesting (and best IMO) answer.


----------



## Boognish (22 October 2010)

It's a great answer because it's so vague as to mean nothing (I mean everything)...

Whatever construct of God you think you have, it has either come directly or indirectly from a "holy" book or books which undoubtedly claim or claimed to be written or dictated by said God.  

These books invariably make claims as to the nature of life, the earth, the universe, morality, human history etc.  These claims are either accurate (true) or they're not.  

Humanity has refined a method of testing ideas and claims made about reality that we call science.  Science is subjected to the imperfections of the humans who practice it.  Science can make few, if any, definitive claims to hard truth (outside mathematics and physics).  However science can build and test models and predict reality, based on observational evidence both in nature and under laboratory conditions.  Therefore science can claim to be the best, perhaps the only method humanity possesses to gauge truth claims.

Therefore if a holy book claims that something is the way it is because X, but science can demonstrate that this thing is the way it is because Y, we can only deduce that the holy book is wrong about that fact.  Logic then leads us down an obvious path.  If the holy book is wrong about claim X, and it's supposed to be an infallible document delivered to humans by a God(s)... something has to give.

Ergo, holy books are worthless to us in these times and simply exist to sow confusion, create differences where none need exist and exert control by proxy among humanity.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2010)

Logique said:


> To the question does God exist? My answer would be ..define God.




Yes, it is a great question, Logique.
I'd add:  "If God exists, why?"

Presumably the believer would assert that nothing could exist without said God having created it.

And the non-believer would assert that "God" was created in the mind of humankind to satisfy their need for purpose and/or an entity to which mortals are morally responsible.


----------



## Sean K (22 October 2010)

God is what we necessarily perceive it to be, perhaps.


----------



## explod (22 October 2010)

tech/a said:


> My answer everything.--Thats all it can be.




Yep, cannot toss that.   We are all *it* whatever that *it is *that makes up everything we percieve.

The saying "thank the lucky stars" have taken on extra meaning to me or perhaps I missed it from the beginning.  But as some of you have come to know, a lot of things do go over my head.

Anyway its Friday the dealings been done (good this week too), so time to loosen up for a drink and see what gg may have in store.


----------



## bullsvsbears (22 October 2010)

Hypothesis for claim b: 

If god exists the way the bible says, then God answers prayer.

Attempt to gain evidence/falsiy claim b:
-Prayer studies have been done, which show prayer is not answered.

In the largest study ever undertaken it was shown intercessory prayer does not work.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html

Furthermore, you could pray right now for god to appear in your room, and I guarantee it would not happen. This is not evidence against because god may just be averse to appearing, but it certainly is not evidence FOR god.

So we have at least one hypothesis falsified, we could say that with current evidence it seems that if god exists he does not answer prayer, furthermore since the bible says that he does, perhaps the bible if not true.

Is this enough to rule out a god? Of course not... However, as you can see in the evidence stakes we have a logical reason to tentatively accept proposition a, but not b. Evidence is required for prop b - god exists. Until evidence is provided it is in the same boat as any other claim without evidence.[/QUOTE]


Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God" 
So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE
which leads me to believe that you used the same flawed reasoning to conclude hypothesis A


----------



## Sean K (22 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
> So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE





Your rebuttal is a quote from the bible? 

Got me..


----------



## explod (22 October 2010)

kennas said:


> Your rebuttal is a quote from the bible?
> 
> Got me..




Me too, we will always regret that we cut down all the trees and gave them jobs in the towns.


----------



## Ruby (22 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
> So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE
> which leads me to believe that you used the same flawed reasoning to conclude hypothesis A




BVB, you just don't have any answer to Twiddle's wonderfully elegant reasoning.  It is not flawed at all - perfectly logical and easy to follow.

Oh, and the biblical quote is "Thou shalt not *tempt*...." not "Thou shalt not *test*...."

Great posts, Twiddle, love your logical, easy to understand line of argument.


----------



## Twiddle (22 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
> So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE
> which leads me to believe that you used the same flawed reasoning to conclude hypothesis A




Because God new it was part of a test he decided to ignore the prayers and let the people with heart conditions die? OK, fair enough.

If you don't like the hypothesis, that is fine, I was just using it to illustrate a point of how the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. A point which you clearly missed... again.


----------



## bullsvsbears (22 October 2010)

kennas said:


> Your rebuttal is a quote from the bible?
> 
> Got me..




If you opened your eyes you will see that TWIDDLES hypothesis b is based on a quote from the bible....hence my rebutltal.
Know your bible before you make rash statements based on biblical quotes.


----------



## bullsvsbears (22 October 2010)

Twiddle said:


> Because God new it was part of a test he decided to ignore the prayers and let the people with heart conditions die? OK, fair enough.
> 
> If you don't like the hypothesis, that is fine, I was just using it to illustrate a point of how the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. A point which you clearly missed... again.




Disagree TWIDDLE,
The burden of proof should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years. Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind.


----------



## Twiddle (22 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> Disagree TWIDDLE,
> The burden of proof should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years.




Yes, certainly evolution requires evidence. Luckily, it has an overwhelming amount, hence why it is the cornerstone of biological science.




bullsvsbears said:


> Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists.




ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?



bullsvsbears said:


> Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far.




Incorrect. 

Examining present and historical life of this planet tells one consistent story. Descent with modification over a vast period of time. This is in direct contradiction with a magical instantaneous creation.

If I claimed I could fly, I jumped out the window and fell to the ground and died. Not only would have failed to provide evidence for my claim, the fact that the opposite of what I was claiming was clearly seen makes my claim likely to be invalid.



bullsvsbears said:


> Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria.




Aah, but what do we observe when there is no neural activity? 

Clearly the "mind" is the product of the brain. 

One day perhaps we may know the intricate details of how conciousness arises. The fact that we do not at this stage does not take away from the fact the we can prove it is the result of a physcial system.



bullsvsbears said:


> We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind.




Non sequitur.

With the human mind you are talking about a falsifiable thing. 

Hypothesis; The "mind" results from the brain.

We define our terms and what we mean by "mind", and then we test to see if active brains produce a mind. We test if non active brains produce a mind (This would falsify the hypothesis that the mind is resultant from the brain).

How would you propose we test the creation hypothesis? There is no way to falsify.

You are arguing that we can simply assume the answer; "Looks designed to me... must be then. Thats settled". This assumes you know absolutlely everything possible to know.

Go back thousands of years and people used the same type of logic for things like lightening bolts; At that time there was no natural (scientific) explanation for them so it was incorrecltly assumed it was that it was something supernatural, the god Zeus.

Sorry, science does not work like that. Science requires evidence. The scientific explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is the theory of evolution, because it has supporting evidence.


----------



## bullsvsbears (22 October 2010)

ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?

Evolution Evidence:  A .........    J  ........ C  .........Z 
now I know my ABC.


----------



## Twiddle (22 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?
> 
> Evolution Evidence:  A .........    J  ........ C  .........Z
> now I know my ABC.




OK, enough time wasted.  Conversation over.

One last thing though BVB, and I mean this sincerely. Please read some books by evolutionary biologists. The list I gave you earlier contains some absolute pearlers. Evolution is not only true, it is also fascinating and wonderful.


----------



## explod (22 October 2010)

bullsvsbears said:


> ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?
> 
> Evolution Evidence:  A .........    J  ........ C  .........Z
> now I know my ABC.




Science has provided the evidence to support the Darwin theory of evolution, apart from ancient writings which at best are secondary there is no evidence to support that God exists.

Bullsvbears you have failed to deliver the direct proof that God exists after repeated requests to do so.    You are therefore in my viewe wasting your time here.  

Tomorrow read again the posts of Twiddle and think about the message as writings from the Bible of nature itself.   It is felt by very many that God is nature and all around us and that our being forms a part of it, and that has been touched on by a number of other posters today.  On reflection I feel that within myself.


----------



## trainspotter (22 October 2010)

I think, therefore I am ...... GOD. I exist. Beat that.


----------



## Tink (23 October 2010)

This debate will go on forever, but there will always be believers and non believers, and thats reality : )


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2010)

Tink said:


> This debate will go on forever, but there will always be believers and non believers, and thats reality : )




I often wonder why people give a rat's what others believe.

Why is it important enough to argue over?


----------



## trainspotter (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I often wonder why people give a rat's what others believe.
> 
> Why is it important enough to argue over?




People are insecure and are looking for approval from like minded thinkers. When you were a child you were rewarded for obeying with what your parents edict was at the time. Same situation here. Society is conditioned to gain acceptance from other people who in turn either pay them a compliment which releases endorphins into the brain to make them feel good about themselves. A kind of Pavlov's dog conditioning response if you like. On the other hand, a negative comment can release a "fight or fight" response and some people are addicted to this kind of rejoinder. I know of several ex members in here that thrived on the negative (rederob springs to mind) Classic nemesis personality complex. Superman needs Lex Luthor, Yin requires Yang and people seek the approval of others.

It is important enough to argue over? You betcha !! (the difference of opinions and not the God thing)


----------



## explod (23 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I think, therefore I am ...... GOD. I exist. Beat that.




Good point, think there is quite a few of us here on ASF.

"Oh how hard it is to be *humble* when your perfect in every way..."

If we can get bullsvbears to believe more in himself, just like *us*, then it may lessen his need for reassurance from the biblical tales.


----------



## explod (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I often wonder why people give a rat's what others believe.
> 
> Why is it important enough to argue over?




In my view because the God delusion has done so much damage and continues to do so at an exponential rate.

If (and it is impossible I know) everyone believed and understood proper evolutionary theory most of problems would go away.   Too many instances in which to even start, but think about it.


----------



## Tink (23 October 2010)

I disagree with you there explod, you may have had bad experiences but I havent.

I accept that you dont believe but please dont expect us all to think like you : )

Move on...


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2010)

explod said:


> In my view because the God delusion has done so much damage and continues to do so at an exponential rate.
> 
> If (and it is impossible I know) everyone believed and understood proper evolutionary theory most of problems would go away.   Too many instances in which to even start, but think about it.




That doesn't answer the question and is merely an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. IOW if everybody agreed with me there would be no argument.

Why should I give a Rat's that you are an Atheist? Why should I give a Rat's if BVB is a Christian. I have my own reasons for being neither, but likewise that's really only my own business.

Apart from sometimes interesting conversation, I only really care if either of you starts to really annoy me in some social setting by proselytizing your position, or to impinge on my lawful activities.

I like debate because it gives me things to think about, but argumentative militants can just ~~~~ off. They don't really have anything to offer.


----------



## explod (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> That doesn't answer the question and is merely an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. IOW if everybody agreed with me there would be no argument.
> 
> Why should I give a Rat's that you are an Atheist? Why should I give a Rat's if BVB is a Christian. I have my own reasons for being neither, but likewise that's really only my own business.
> 
> ...




Yep, you are probably on the ball.  Tink hit the spot, I have a huge problem with it and should go away.

I have seen the disgusting side of it which colours the ballance.  

Off topic, its about the theories and not the individual.  Apologies


----------



## Julia (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> That doesn't answer the question and is merely an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. IOW if everybody agreed with me there would be no argument.
> 
> Why should I give a Rat's that you are an Atheist? Why should I give a Rat's if BVB is a Christian. I have my own reasons for being neither, but likewise that's really only my own business.
> 
> ...



You've pretty much answered your own question above, Wayne: viz "it's sometimes interesting".

I'm genuinely interested in why people believe what they do, and not just about God/religion.

I've tried to ask the question a few times, but no one has actually explained WHY they believe in a God.

Also, I can't see any justification for any position other than agnosticism, in that neither believers nor atheists can prove their position.





explod said:


> Yep, you are probably on the ball.  Tink hit the spot, I have a huge problem with it and should go away.
> 
> .  Apologies



On the contrary, explod, you've made some thoughtful contributions.
Would prefer that you don't go away.


----------



## trainspotter (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> That doesn't answer the question and is merely an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. *IOW if everybody agreed with me there would be no argument.*




Then you truly would be a GOD if you could get everyone to agree with you. Either that or a dictator. Sort of the same thing I guess.

Psalm 137 is still my favourite.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Then you truly would be a GOD if you could get everyone to agree with you. Either that or a dictator. Sort of the same thing I guess.




The statement was rhetorical.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 October 2010)

We don't need to 'think' a god exists in order to complete a life cycle. No other living organisms do this. A human life cycle can be short or long regardless of whether we think there is a god or not. So that is proof. 

What drives the spermatozoon to create new life? Swimming purposefully and carrying the blue print for that species to continue existence. It is the same drive that a whole organism has to go on living. A specific task must be completed for continued life. Basic observation.


----------



## nunthewiser (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I often wonder why people give a rat's what others believe.
> 
> :




Good to see like mindedness

often wonder why people try to preach there beliefs to those that dont give a rats also

have a great day


----------



## trainspotter (23 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> The statement was rhetorical.




Or you could be a moderator in ASF?? Same thing really. You have the power to delete and excommunicate at will. LOLOLOLOL.


----------



## Twiddle (23 October 2010)

If you are in this thread posting, no matter how you are posting, It shows you care about what others think about these things.

These beliefs are important, because often they inform our actions.


----------



## Tink (24 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> That doesn't answer the question and is merely an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. IOW if everybody agreed with me there would be no argument.
> 
> Why should I give a Rat's that you are an Atheist? Why should I give a Rat's if BVB is a Christian. I have my own reasons for being neither, but likewise that's really only my own business.
> 
> ...




Thats an excellent post Wayne

At the end of the day it doesnt matter what a person believes, as long as they arent affecting you : )


----------



## bellenuit (24 October 2010)

Tink said:


> Thats an excellent post Wayne
> 
> At the end of the day it doesnt matter what a person believes, as long as they arent affecting you : )




.... or anybody else that doesn't want to be a part of it.


----------



## bullsvsbears (24 October 2010)

Twiddle said:


> OK, enough time wasted.  Conversation over.
> 
> One last thing though BVB, and I mean this sincerely. Please read some books by evolutionary biologists. The list I gave you earlier contains some absolute pearlers. Evolution is not only true, it is also fascinating and wonderful.





I have lots of compassion for your beliefs Twiddle and by no means think anything less of you because of your beliefs nor am I attempting to change your ways. Like I have already stated in previous posts, I too was an atheist at one stage. One of the traits that has changed about my personality now that I acknowledge God's existence is that I no longer hold bitterness or resentment for those who oppose my views...I hope you feel the same way.

May your stocks be good stocks
Cheers


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Or you could be a moderator in ASF?? Same thing really. You have the power to delete and excommunicate at will. LOLOLOLOL.




Nothing could be further from the truth, mods answer to a higher power.


----------

