Evidence of god

[Hotpapa666]

Ok, here's your shot. The age of elightment has chipped away at the need for a god to explain the realities of the universe. God is supposed to the creator, and the Bible is supposed to be literally the tale of his creation yet: The Bible failed to explain the existence of other galaxies, Science has, forget the pun, shown the light. Science has shown us that everything is made of atoms, molecules, etc., the Bible doesn't mention anything about atoms, electrons, bonds. Etc.

God is supposed to be the judge of morality. There are so many versions of Christian Morality that making heads or tales of any of it is a perilous mine field.

An end to the world if we all misbehave. This was the last and most traggic thing that humanity acquired, the ability to destroy all...

Anyway, let's see some evidence of god. Since everything real has evidence to back it up: Empirical.

[Vegas]

Let's look at this from another perspective. How about you provide your evidence that God does not exist?

[Tom Joad]

Let's look at this from another perspective. How about you provide your evidence that God does not exist?

I think we'd be hard pressed to find evidence either way. I believe that's where faith comes in.

[Hotpapa666]

Let's look at this from another perspective. How about you provide your evidence that God does not exist?

It is not possible to show evidence for the lack of something. If it doesn't exists, there is no evidence for it.

[KinjaKahn]

It is not possible to show evidence for the lack of something. If it doesn't exists, there is no evidence for it.
Yet, your religion of math and matter contradicts your thought with the idea of the Zero place holder.

[thrasymachus]

Ok, here's your shot. The age of elightment has chipped away at the need for a god to explain the realities of the universe. God is supposed to the creator, and the Bible is supposed to be literally the tale of his creation yet: The Bible failed to explain the existence of other galaxies, Science has, forget the pun, shown the light. Science has shown us that everything is made of atoms, molecules, etc., the Bible doesn't mention anything about atoms, electrons, bonds. Etc.

God is supposed to be the judge of morality. There are so many versions of Christian Morality that making heads or tales of any of it is a perilous mine field.

An end to the world if we all misbehave. This was the last and most traggic thing that humanity acquired, the ability to destroy all...

Anyway, let's see some evidence of god. Since everything real has evidence to back it up: Empirical.
What you're asking for is impossible. You want physical evidence that a non-physical being exists.

[ryr8828]

I just look around me.

You purport we have no souls. I wonder why we all just don't take what we need from weaker humans if that is the case. Why did we pass laws, why do we have a conscience? Why do most of us feel bad if we do wrong to someone else, or an animal?

I look around me at the trees, my grandkids, corn growing, many things, I realize that it isn't all just a big accident.

I think it very arrogant of you to think that our creation was a huge accident and our existence is controlled by our discovered science. We help ourselves, but we aren't the end all. If you can't understand it, I can't explain it to you.

How did all this come out of nothingness?

[Hotpapa666]

I was hoping for a post like this; I really don't post things like this in order to stir shit or fuck with people; I really don't. I think that is important for people to constantly ask questions. If an idea is a good one, it will stand up to the barrage of questions; if not, it will fall apart.

You raise some interesting ideas. Ideas that religion has explained to man's satisfaction for millenia. Also, ideas that I have used god to explain in the past. I now think that there better explainations than god to explain those ideas and futher, the explainations make the existence of a Christian god highly unlikely.


I just look around me.

You purport we have no souls. I wonder why we all just don't take what we need from weaker humans if that is the case. Why did we pass laws, why do we have a conscience? Why do most of us feel bad if we do wrong to someone else, or an animal?

But, we do take what we need from weaker people. God isn't out there preventing your boss from making money from your labor is he? God does nothing about the thousands of muggings, burglaries, embezelments and robberies that happen daily. Etc...

Why do we pass laws? Because it benifits us socially. In the same way that it is important for Rhesus monkeys to keep every member of the pack fed it is important for us to protect the social balance through laws. There is an incredibly interesting branch of biology that deals with the social structure of species. Non-human Primate social structure is just as intricate and complex as human social structure; it is just communicated in different ways.

We have a conscience because we are social; empathy and sympathy are the result of social behavior; humans are not the only empathetic/sympathetic species. Remember a few years back when that baby fell into the gorilla pit? Most of the gorillas wanted to rip the baby apart, but one felt empathy for the baby, fought the others off and saved the baby. That's empathy.


I look around me at the trees, my grandkids, corn growing, many things, I realize that it isn't all just a big accident.

It's not a big accident. The Earth is a glorious place, the works of man are at times awe inspiring, the products of nature are always so. It is not impossible to see the world as beautiful with no god in it. It is a different beautiful and not the product of an accident. As a former believer in god, I can say that I, for one, find the world a much more beautiful place from the context of evolution, the product of the laws of nature, than when I thought it was all just god's creation.

I think it very arrogant of you to think that our creation was a huge accident and our existence is controlled by our discovered science. We help ourselves, but we aren't the end all. If you can't understand it, I can't explain it to you.

How did all this come out of nothingness?

I don't think that my creation is a big accident, the evolution of the species is controlled by the same laws of physics as every other physical process in the universe. And, science doesn't control our existence, it is simply a way to ask and answer questions. Many religious leaders have made science the target of their ire and tried to make it into the buggy man. It's unfortunate that they do so, because science is such a powerful tool and has done more to futher humanity than anything else that man has come up with. Think for a few mintues about the products of science that you use every day and what the pre-science solution to those problems was and you will see how profound the impact has been.

Thanks again for raising some interesting questions and making this an interesting discussion.

[Jiddy78]

I'm supposing that the Kirk Cameron banana thing isn't going to fly, eh papa?

[Hotpapa666]

I'm supposing that the Kirk Cameron banana thing isn't going to fly, eh papa?


No Crocoduck no evolution.

Or is it no Duckodile, no evolution...

[thrasymachus]

Evolution has nothing to do with refuting God. I'm not sure why it is being heralded as if it does.

Again, there is a problem with putting a scientific standard on something that is not science. Demanding empirical evidence to prove god just doesn't work.

For most people, they don't use any empirical evidence for god's existence. Instead, at an individual level they know that god exists.

I can't even prove to you that I exist, so I don't know how I could possibly prove to anyone that god exists.

Science is a great tool. I love science, actually. But it is not without its faults.

[Ed Who?]

I don't think that my creation is a big accident, the evolution of the species is controlled by the same laws of physics as every other physical process in the universe. And, science doesn't control our existence, it is simply a way to ask and answer questions. Many religious leaders have made science the target of their ire and tried to make it into the buggy man. It's unfortunate that they do so, because science is such a powerful tool and has done more to futher humanity than anything else that man has come up with. Think for a few mintues about the products of science that you use every day and what the pre-science solution to those problems was and you will see how profound the impact has been.


If you don't want to bring science into a religious discussion, then it's pretty easy to simply not bring it up. Unfortunately, a large component of the scientific community seems driven by the goal of disproving the book of Genesis.

I need to clear this up...it's not a "big accident?" What exactly does that mean? Not being a big accident means that there was some reason for it to occur, right? So you're saying you believe there is a God, but that you feel no reason to align yourself with His ways and purposes?

[Hotpapa666]

If you don't want to bring science into a religious discussion, then it's pretty easy to simply not bring it up. Unfortunately, a large component of the scientific community seems driven by the goal of disproving the book of Genesis.

I need to clear this up...it's not a "big accident?" What exactly does that mean? Not being a big accident means that there was some reason for it to occur, right? So you're saying you believe there is a God, but that you feel no reason to align yourself with His ways and purposes?

I worked in science for over decade, talked to scientists daily, read scientific journals, attended conferences, etc., and I never once heard anyone mention that their goal was to disprove Genesis. Genesis has been disproven because it is a made up story that has absolutely nothing to do with origin of anything.

Yes, there is a reason for exsistence of things, that doesn't mean there is has to be a god. Your logic is faulty.

[thrasymachus]

1. The universe was created by something.
2. That something exists.
3. That something is God.
4. God exists.

[Hotpapa666]

1. The universe was created by something.
2. That something exists.
3. That something is God.
4. God exists.

Your assumption is faulty. Your logic is incomplete between 2 and 3. In four lines you make two major mistakes. So, pardon me if I am not convinced by it.

[Ed Who?]

I worked in science for over decade, talked to scientists daily, read scientific journals, attended conferences, etc., and I never once heard anyone mention that their goal was to disprove Genesis. Genesis has been disproven because it is a made up story that has absolutely nothing to do with origin of anything.

Yes, there is a reason for exsistence of things, that doesn't mean there is has to be a god. Your logic is faulty.

I don't agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinions. If you go through life only believing evidentiary existance, I think you will have a difficult time justifying your existance and finding meaning in your life. Belief in the continuing existance of one's soul after death at least gives some hope in my opinion; the belief that we're alive for only a few fleeting years would make me feel much more desolate...thinking about the time I squandered when I was younger when I could have been enjoying time with my grandparents. But at least I have the honest feeling inside that I will see them again someday, and it will be a glorious time.

I'm not going to try and "convert" you or anything, evidence of a God is only as good as your willingness to accept accounts of a 2000-yr old Bible and the way that people like me have been affected by their beliefs. Aside from that, I can't give you a factual basis for belief. That's not the business my God is in.

[Jiddy78]

I worked in science for over decade, talked to scientists daily, read scientific journals, attended conferences, etc., and I never once heard anyone mention that their goal was to disprove Genesis. Genesis has been disproven because it is a made up story that has absolutely nothing to do with origin of anything.

Yes, there is a reason for exsistence of things, that doesn't mean there is has to be a god. Your logic is faulty.

At the stroke of midnight? Impressive.

[thrasymachus]

Your assumption is faulty. Your logic is incomplete between 2 and 3. In four lines you make two major mistakes. So, pardon me if I am not convinced by it.
I am defining God in line 3. My only assumption is that the something still exists.

That being said, I wouldn't be convinced by it either. I was bored.

[KinjaKahn]

I am defining God in line 3. My only assumption is that the something still exists.

That being said, I wouldn't be convinced by it either. I was bored.
Don't let these science zealots get to you, just remember they think all the atoms of the universe used to be packed together in one atom and "magically" popped into an ever accelerating expansion. Meanwhile they cant pack 100 atoms in the space of one, let alone 398,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 + a lot more, into one.

Then there is that silly String Theory, with its multiple dimensions, and that allow me to walk through solid concrete walls, provided that a little luck with numbers is with me.

Here's their proof!
http://maplenet.maplesoft.com/maplenet/primes/76350a6fcda0d4a2d2a2e06ffbdf759b.gif

[Hotpapa666]

I am defining God in line 3. My only assumption is that the something still exists.

That being said, I wouldn't be convinced by it either. I was bored.

That's a relief.

I took a philosophy of religion class back in college and a varient of that arguement was posited as an unquestionable proof of god. The problem is the assumption is faulty, and with any such faulty assumption you can logically produce any outcome. A trick of logic....

[thrasymachus]

That's a relief.

I took a philosophy of religion class back in college and a varient of that arguement was posited as an unquestionable proof of god. The problem is the assumption is faulty, and with any such faulty assumption you can logically produce any outcome. A trick of logic....
Probably some form of the Ontological Argument.

Anselm's version is more complex than some others I've looked at. All in all, they are not satisfying, but people seem to like the argument for some reason. Probably because it gave philosophers a problem for a while and nobody was quite sure how to show the argument was wrong.

[Hotpapa666]

Probably some form of the Ontological Argument.

Anselm's version is more complex than some others I've looked at. All in all, they are not satisfying, but people seem to like the argument for some reason. Probably because it gave philosophers a problem for a while and nobody was quite sure how to show the argument was wrong.

You know your stuff. I remember that aspect of the arguement; it took me years to sort that out for myself. It really sucks when something seems to make so much sense, seems to define reality so beautifully, but is wrong and you can't quiet figure out why. But, wonderful when you do...

After several classes in philosphy and logic I have come to the understanding that they have tremendous limitations: If a statement is true it must be logical, but all logical arguements are not true.

[Hotpapa666]

Don't let these science zealots get to you, just remember they think all the atoms of the universe used to be packed together in one atom and "magically" popped into an ever accelerating expansion. Meanwhile they cant pack 100 atoms in the space of one, let alone 398,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 + a lot more, into one.

Then there is that silly String Theory, with its multiple dimensions, and that allow me to walk through solid concrete walls, provided that a little luck with numbers is with me.

Here's their proof!
http://maplenet.maplesoft.com/maplenet/primes/76350a6fcda0d4a2d2a2e06ffbdf759b.gif


I continue to be entertained by your use of adjectives which best describe irrational religious people and how you try and undermine rational thought with them. Scientific zelaots? All of these msiguided scientists who are using all of this terrible stuff called data to learn about the universe when there is a 2,000 year old book which does a shitty job describing what we know to be true. Fucking scientific zealots, eh? Gimme a break. When you stop using your computer, driving your car, going to the doctor, wearing sneakers, eating chocolate bars, insulating your house, etc. ad infinitum, then you can talk to me about how the world has been corrupted by science. But, you aren't going to stop enjoying these products of science, or any of the countless others. You'll continue to try and have things both ways, living with a world enriched by the products of science but attacking science because it undermines your faulty assumptions about god etc. For some reason you go after string theory as though the existence of string theory undermines all of scientific thought. You are woefully mistaken.

[KinjaKahn]

I continue to be entertained by your use of adjectives which best describe irrational religious people and how you try and undermine rational thought with them. Scientific zelaots? All of these msiguided scientists who are using all of this terrible stuff called data to learn about the universe when there is a 2,000 year old book which does a shitty job describing what we know to be true. Fucking scientific zealots, eh? Gimme a break. When you stop using your computer, driving your car, going to the doctor, wearing sneakers, eating chocolate bars, insulating your house, etc. ad infinitum, then you can talk to me about how the world has been corrupted by science. But, you aren't going to stop enjoying these products of science, or any of the countless others. You'll continue to try and have things both ways, living with a world enriched by the products of science but attacking science because it undermines your faulty assumptions about god etc. For some reason you go after string theory as though the existence of string theory undermines all of scientific thought. You are woefully mistaken.
The moment one of your leaders, or even yourself delves into religion, you open all you hold dear to criticism. I am not against science as a whole, just the science zealots who turn their science against God, you know, the creator of all that is. Is it safe to assume you exchanged no presents and ignored this Christmas season, in the name of "logic"? Did you belittle your family members and neighbors who did celebrate the Birth of Jesus Christ? Did you put in solid workdays on Monday & Tuesday the 24th & 25th of December?

[Hotpapa666]

The moment one of your leaders, or even yourself delves into religion, you open all you hold dear to criticism. I am not against science as a whole, just the science zealots who turn their science against God, you know, the creator of all that is. Is it safe to assume you exchanged no presents and ignored this Christmas season, in the name of "logic"? Did you belittle your family members and neighbors who did celebrate the Birth of Jesus Christ? Did you put in solid workdays on Monday & Tuesday the 24th & 25th of December?

I'm not sure I ever put in a solid work day, but my work ethic has nothing to do with the issue. As matter of fact, there were no gifts exchanged in the Hotpapa household this year, no tree, no turkey, no gravy, no Zinfindel wine (apologies to James McMurtry) as usual (I did buy myself a new driver and new espressso machine/grinder that cost a mortgage payment). Not because of any contempt for Christianity, but because this year we were traveling and usually we are just to fucking busy; this is the first year in 7 years that my wife slept during the 48 period of Christmas eve/Christmas. But I digress...

Who are "my leaders"? If "God, you know, the creator of all that is" is really the creator, where is the evidence? The Big Bang has TONS of evidence, god has a 2,000 year old book on his side, nothing more. The purpose of this thread was to give people like you an opportunity to post some evidence. So far, there is nothing.

[KinjaKahn]

I'm not sure I ever put in a solid work day, but my work ethic has nothing to do with the issue. As matter of fact, there were no gifts exchanged in the Hotpapa household this year, no tree, no turkey, no gravy, no Zinfindel wine (apologies to James McMurtry) as usual (I did buy myself a new driver and new espressso machine/grinder that cost a mortgage payment). Not because of any contempt for Christianity, but because this year we were traveling and usually we are just to fucking busy; this is the first year in 7 years that my wife slept during the 48 period of Christmas eve/Christmas. But I digress...So you got absolutely nothing as a gift from anyone? Your employer gave nothing? Surely you returned an employers gift... How about mommy and pops?

Who are "my leaders"? If "God, you know, the creator of all that is" is really the creator, where is the evidence? The Big Bang has TONS of evidence, god has a 2,000 year old book on his side, nothing more. The purpose of this thread was to give people like you an opportunity to post some evidence. So far, there is nothing.
You keep asking for evidence, yet you wont provide me what I asked for, I need the equation for consciousness, to provide the proper "scientific evidence" you ask for. It seems you will only accept evidence that conforms to you Math and Matter Cult... give me the equation.

[Ed Who?]

So you got absolutely nothing as a gift from anyone? Your employer gave nothing? Surely you returned an employers gift... How about mommy and pops?

You keep asking for evidence, yet you wont provide me what I asked for, I need the equation for consciousness, to provide the proper "scientific evidence" you ask for. It seems you will only accept evidence that conforms to you Math and Matter Cult... give me the equation.

The problem that Hotpapa can never overcome is that God cannot be bound by an equation.

[Hotpapa666]

So you got absolutely nothing as a gift from anyone? Your employer gave nothing? Surely you returned an employers gift... How about mommy and pops?


You keep asking for evidence, yet you wont provide me what I asked for, I need the equation for consciousness, to provide the proper "scientific evidence" you ask for. It seems you will only accept evidence that conforms to you Math and Matter Cult... give me the equation.

My employeer is either Shinto or Buddhist, I don't know because it has never come up so, no, no Christmas gift. My parents sent me a load of boxers and and socks, the old "Socks and Underwear" gift that everyone hated as a kid was a wonderful gift in a country where nothing fucking fits me (I live in Japan BTW.

But, I am not sure what any of this has to do with anything. Christmas is a time to get together with friends and family. Getting together with those people isn't an aformation of the existence of god or the birth of a savior, it's just a chance to kick it people that you love. I celebrated Christmas with a Sinhalese Santa in White Face and a dude with a Mickey Mouse head on, all Buddhist not because it was a significant religious holiday but because it's fun and heartening and a great fucking excuse to have a party.

I'm not sure what a Math and Matter cult is. It sounds like something that a religious person made up to try and undermine a pretty great system to explain phenomenae.

As far as the equation that you ask for. It's not out there. But neither is a religious explaination for consciousness; unless you accept the, 'shucks, god did it' explaination as convincing. Religious people, like yourself, try to undermine science by offering up examples of questions that science hasn't answered (or questions that science has answered but in ways that they find distasteful) as evidence that science is somehow faulty. However, those people aren't willing to give up living a world that science has produced, they aren't even willing, even, to sit in the church that would be sweltering hot in summer but for the air conditioning that science made possible. An interesting conundrum, eh? Anyway, back to the point, science hasn't answered every question, that doesn't undermine the value or power of science. Answering the questions of the universe is a work in progress.

[KinjaKahn]

My employeer is either Shinto or Buddhist, I don't know because it has never come up so, no, no Christmas gift. My parents sent me a load of boxers and and socks, the old "Socks and Underwear" gift that everyone hated as a kid was a wonderful gift in a country where nothing fucking fits me (I live in Japan BTW.

But, I am not sure what any of this has to do with anything. Christmas is a time to get together with friends and family. Getting together with those people isn't an aformation of the existence of god or the birth of a savior, it's just a chance to kick it people that you love. I celebrated Christmas with a Sinhalese Santa in White Face and a dude with a Mickey Mouse head on, all Buddhist not because it was a significant religious holiday but because it's fun and heartening and a great fucking excuse to have a party.

I'm not sure what a Math and Matter cult is. It sounds like something that a religious person made up to try and undermine a pretty great system to explain phenomenae.

As far as the equation that you ask for. It's not out there. But neither is a religious explaination for consciousness; unless you accept the, 'shucks, god did it' explaination as convincing. Religious people, like yourself, try to undermine science by offering up examples of questions that science hasn't answered (or questions that science has answered but in ways that they find distasteful) as evidence that science is somehow faulty. However, those people aren't willing to give up living a world that science has produced, they aren't even willing, even, to sit in the church that would be sweltering hot in summer but for the air conditioning that science made possible. An interesting conundrum, eh? Anyway, back to the point, science hasn't answered every question, that doesn't undermine the value or power of science. Answering the questions of the universe is a work in progress.

As long as your clique of propeller heads demand evidence compatible with your cult of Math and Matter, you simply lack the ability to transcend the self imposed laws that govern and limit your freedom of thought and subsequent comprehension of ideas that fail to win popularity contests.

Surely you returned your socks and boxers to the sender?

[Hotpapa666]

As long as your clique of propeller heads demand evidence compatible with your cult of Math and Matter, you simply lack the ability to transcend the self imposed laws that govern and limit your freedom of thought and subsequent comprehension of ideas that fail to win popularity contests.

Surely you returned your socks and boxers to the sender?


I must be getting good at this. It took me fewer than 10 posts to paint you into a corner which left you with only personal insults as ammo...

Google maps me directions to one of these Cults of Math and Matter. I'd be curious to attend a meeting. Oh wait, you made the whole idea up...

I surely as fuck didn't return my boxers and socks. A pair of the boxers is keeping my nuts warm right now. Is that the evidence of god that I've been waiting for?

[KinjaKahn]

I must be getting good at this. It took me fewer than 10 posts to paint you into a corner which left you with only personal insults as ammo...

Google maps me directions to one of these Cults of Math and Matter. I'd be curious to attend a meeting. Oh wait, you made the whole idea up...

I surely as fuck didn't return my boxers and socks. A pair of the boxers is keeping my nuts warm right now. Is that the evidence of god that I've been waiting for?
There is no personal insult. You shouldn't take it that way.

If I cannot enjoy "air conditioning" at mass, why should you be able to enjoy the gifts given to you at Christmas time. Turn about isn't fair play?

[Hotpapa666]

There is no personal insult. You shouldn't take it that way.

If I cannot enjoy "air conditioning" at mass, why should you be able to enjoy the gifts given to you at Christmas time. Turn about isn't fair play?


Let's not muddle things up by equating superstition with testable ideas. Turn about being fair play is fine as long as the turn is based in reality. And, certainly, let's not compare headwear. Because, let's be honest, though a scientist or two wears a beanie with a prop, it really ranks low on the rediculous scale with the things that Pope puts on his head. Where did he get those riches anyway?

[KinjaKahn]

Let's not muddle things up by equating superstition with testable ideas. Turn about being fair play is fine as long as the turn is based in reality. And, certainly, let's not compare headwear. Because, let's be honest, though a scientist or two wears a beanie with a prop, it really ranks low on the rediculous scale with the things that Pope puts on his head. Where did he get those riches anyway?
Testable like Silly String Theory? Which is being taught in the highest of accredited universities...

[Hotpapa666]

Testable like Silly String Theory? Which is being taught in the highest of accredited universities...


Again, you find one theory that you can't wrap your brain around and try to use it as an example of how the most powerful tool for understanding the universe is wrong. Pardon me for not being convinced.

Seat Belts.

[KinjaKahn]

Again, you find one theory that you can't wrap your brain around and try to use it as an example of how the most powerful tool for understanding the universe is wrong. Pardon me for not being convinced.

Seat Belts.
ROFL.

It's not a matter of comprehension, its about teaching fantasy and passing it off as valid or truth.

[Hotpapa666]

ROFL.


When you get up, post a link to one of those cults of Math and Matter that you keep posting about.

[KinjaKahn]

When you get up, post a link to one of those cults of Math and Matter that you keep posting about.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/grad/requir.html
# Introduction to String Theory [Physics 287a]
# Topics in String Theory [Physics 287br]

[Hotpapa666]

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/grad/requir.html
# Introduction to String Theory [Physics 287a]
# Topics in String Theory [Physics 287br]


So, Harvard is now a Cult of Math and Matter?

Harvard is, perhaps, the most respected instituation of higher learning in the world, if not the highest, then the second highest after Oxford, the fact that a religious person finds something taught at Harvard threatening is encouraging to me. BTW, why the hang up on String Theory?

[KinjaKahn]

So, Harvard is now a Cult of Math and Matter?

Harvard is, perhaps, the most respected instituation of higher learning in the world, if not the highest, then the second highest after Oxford, the fact that a religious person finds something taught at Harvard threatening is encouraging to me. BTW, why the hang up on String Theory?
There is nothing "threatening", it is disappointing. Disappointing in that this faculty is trying to pass philosophy off as science. There is no evidence for string theory, save the popularity contest conducted by propeller heads.

[Hotpapa666]

There is nothing "threatening", it is disappointing. Disappointing in that this faculty is trying to pass philosophy off as science. There is no evidence for string theory, save the popularity contest conducted by propeller heads.

In all honesty, I know nothing real about String Theory, I think I know some tidbits, here and there, but I don't claim to have an understanding of the theory, or anywhere near an understanding of the math.

That said, why do think that an enter way of thinking can be brought down because you don't like one of it's many products? Science is just an evidence based way of thinking. There are some pretty wacky things that can come down the pike but, scientists test and remove the shit that doesn't pass muster. Maybe String Theory is rediculous (maybe not) but that does nothing to discredit the myriad of advances that science has made. And, certainly, you can't discredit solid ideas like evolution by talking about String Theory.

[giddyup4]

Damn! Lots of tension in this thread. I need a drink. Is possible to have it both ways? Can there be evolution that has a energy/higher being behind it? I think so. Can I prove it? Nope. Can i believe in it? Sure can. Who am i hurting? No one. Nobody will be able to prove to you Hotpapa that God exists but like someone said, you will never be able to prove that God doesnt exist. Its all a matter of what the individual believes. I dont believe in religion for its man made and man is very corrupt but i do believe in spirituality. Just because you think God doesnt exists does not make it so or the other way around.

[giddyup4]

No takers?

[ryr8828]

No takers?

I believe in God and I believe in His Son.

I can not profess to be so all knowing as to understand how he created us and this world, and his plans.

No one will offer proof against my God or His Son in my lifetime, or my children's lifetimes. They will offer what they regard as truth, which is false or nonexistent. They will post on message boards, write scientific journals, newspaper articles, all denouncing an Almighty.They will talk about evolution, dinosaurs, monkeys becoming men, and denounce all who don't believe their teachings as being ignorant people.

They will talk about dust, a cosmic explosion, a big bang. With all this scientific knowledge they will never explain where this dust came from, where this explosion came from, how something was brought into being from nothing. Their own science teaches them that their theory of no Creator is impossible. Something from nothingness.

Since that's a dead end for them they will then attack our beliefs and the scriptures we study, trying to find fault in those. They will twist words in different translations of scriptures to point to scriptures of flat earth and other things.

I have to wonder why they work so hard.

[Hotpapa666]

Damn! Lots of tension in this thread. I need a drink. Is possible to have it both ways? Can there be evolution that has a energy/higher being behind it? I think so. Can I prove it? Nope. Can i believe in it? Sure can. Who am i hurting? No one. Nobody will be able to prove to you Hotpapa that God exists but like someone said, you will never be able to prove that God doesnt exist. Its all a matter of what the individual believes. I dont believe in religion for its man made and man is very corrupt but i do believe in spirituality. Just because you think God doesnt exists does not make it so or the other way around.

Of course. So what, stop talking about it? My goal is not to prove or disprove anything. I want to talk about these things because there are tons of mosconsceptions about science in general and evolution in particular held by many people. There are also tons of inconsistencies between what people believe and what they do in their lives; the same people who rail against science one minute as a cult the next minute are using the their computer or microwave or automobile or one of the other countless products of science. Lastly, the standard used by religious people who rail against is set so high as to be impossible to acheive, a standard that religious people aren't willing to apply to their beliefs. Where is the garden of eden? Where's Noah's Ark? etc.

I could keep going but, that in a nut shell is why I started this thread.

[Roy Munson]

Since that's a dead end for them they will then attack our beliefs and the scriptures we study, trying to find fault in those. They will twist words in different translations of scriptures to point to scriptures of flat earth and other things.

scriptures? papers written by men, powerful men looking to control their people? Why do you think there are rules about what food you can eat, or that using forms of contraception is evil? I guess its easier to build a bigger army to attack others with different beliefs if your own people reproduce as much as possible and they stop eating food that might kill them.

It came from a burning bush, the people must follow it.

[Smoke681]

Of course. So what, stop talking about it? My goal is not to prove or disprove anything. I want to talk about these things because there are tons of mosconsceptions about science in general and evolution in particular held by many people. There are also tons of inconsistencies between what people believe and what they do in their lives; the same people who rail against science one minute as a cult the next minute are using the their computer or microwave or automobile or one of the other countless products of science. Lastly, the standard used by religious people who rail against is set so high as to be impossible to acheive, a standard that religious people aren't willing to apply to their beliefs. Where is the garden of eden? Where's Noah's Ark? etc.

I could keep going but, that in a nut shell is why I started this thread.




Oh really?

Anyway, let's see some evidence of god. Since everything real has evidence to back it up

Sounds to me like you ARE looking for proof. Or at least you were.

[Hotpapa666]

Oh really?



Sounds to me like you ARE looking for proof. Or at least you were.

Evidence isn't the same thing as proof. But, either way, maybe I mis-typed. Either way, we're around 50 posts in this thread and not a single bit of evidence has been provided for the existence of god.

[ryr8828]

scriptures? papers written by men, powerful men looking to control their people? Why do you think there are rules about what food you can eat, or that using forms of contraception is evil? I guess its easier to build a bigger army to attack others with different beliefs if your own people reproduce as much as possible and they stop eating food that might kill them.

It came from a burning bush, the people must follow it.

I try to live by John 3:16 most of all.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[ryr8828]

Evidence isn't the same thing as proof. But, either way, maybe I mis-typed. Either way, we're around 50 posts in this thread and not a single bit of evidence has been provided for the existence of god.

How much evidence has been provided for the nonexistence of God?

None, because there is none.

[Roy Munson]

I try to live by John 3:16 most of all.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
no love for the non-believers?

[Hotpapa666]

How much evidence has been provided for the nonexistence of God?

None, because there is none.

You ask me to do the impossible. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

[Hotpapa666]

no love for the non-believers?

That's what the crusades were about, spreading the love of Christ.

[Smoke681]

Evidence isn't the same thing as proof. But, either way, maybe I mis-typed. Either way, we're around 50 posts in this thread and not a single bit of evidence has been provided for the existence of god.
Asking for evidence = asking for proof where I come from.

Maybe you meant something different.

You're asking for something that is very difficult to provide. Proof of something we cannot see, cannot physically touch, etc. It takes faith. Certain people can't - or refuse - to grasp that, and that's understandable. I won't lie, as a Christian I have indeed questioned and/or doubted my own faith at times. There's times where I ask myself how could a "loving" God allow innocent children to die terrible deaths, or why would a loving God dole out punishments the way they're described in the Bible? Or if our God is so powerful, why doesn't he unscrew this jacked up world we live in?

But then I have a situation where my brother in law crashes his plane, gets completely screwed up, breaks dang near every bone in his body, brain injuries, you name it. Is in a coma. Doctors say he'll die in hours. A few of us pray for hours on end at his bedside. Praying for a miracle. Praying for something. 10 years later not only is he alive, but he's a very successful CPA, a Duathlete, avid hunter, and is married with a 1 year old child. I could sit here and make a list of hundreds upon hundreds of times where I've seen God work in ways I can't describe, where I've felt God's presence in the most supernatural way. I look around and I see how this world was created, the vast landscape, the way everything feeds into everything else in the circle of life, the way the oceans affect the atmosphere which affects our climates and ability to live. The way human beings are built, how our systems work, how we breathe to stay alive, etc. ANd I'm always again convinced that this isn't the work of coincidence, this is the work of a creative artist, and master creator, an all powerful God. It's not something I can calculate, formulate, put into powerpoint and convince you of. If you don't believe, you don't believe. ANd that's your choice -- God intended it that way.

[LSU]

I want someone to prove to me that System of a Down is a good band.

I don't like them. There are many out there that do. I think they're wrong, and until they prove unequivicably that they're a good band, my mind will not change.

[Hotpapa666]

I'm glad your brother is alive and doing well but it has been pretty well established that praying for others does nothing to influence their health. Praying for yourself does help, the same as a placebo.

As far as the questions you have about 'god's actions' they are valid. They were some of the first things that came to my mind when I lost my religion. god (sic), for being the universal arbitor of write of right and wrong is pretty inconsistent in doling out rewards and punishments. To me, that is inconsistent with being omnipotent.

[ryr8828]

no love for the non-believers?

I blessed the driver before I sent it, and I pray for you every night.

[ryr8828]

The prayers of my grandmother and mother can be the only reason I'm still alive.
If you people had the slightest idea about some of the shit I did when I was younger there would be no doubt.

I'm convinced that no one can be that lucky.

[Hotpapa666]

I want someone to prove to me that System of a Down is a good band.

I don't like them. There are many out there that do. I think they're wrong, and until they prove unequivicably that they're a good band, my mind will not change.

You will not get that argument from me. Horrible.

[Smoke681]

I'm glad your brother is alive and doing well but it has been pretty well established that praying for others does nothing to influence their health. Praying for yourself does help, the same as a placebo.

As far as the questions you have about 'god's actions' they are valid. They were some of the first things that came to my mind when I lost my religion. god (sic), for being the universal arbitor of write of right and wrong is pretty inconsistent in doling out rewards and punishments. To me, that is inconsistent with being omnipotent.
It has been established that prayer does not affect the health of a person? Established? Where's THAT study/report? I'm very anxious to see it. Is there a link? Did you hear this somewhere?

[Hotpapa666]

It has been established that prayer does not affect the health of a person? Established? Where's THAT study/report? I'm very anxious to see it. Is there a link? Did you hear this somewhere?

I read it somewhere years ago. I'll try and find an article.

[ryr8828]

I read it somewhere years ago. I'll try and find an article.
Had to be a hell of a study.

[Hotpapa666]

Here's a lay article. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-30-voa60.cfm?CFID=221506841&CFTOKEN=43011942

[Smoke681]

Here's a lay article. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-30-voa60.cfm?CFID=221506841&CFTOKEN=43011942
"Scientists study prayer"

I read no further, sorry.

[domenick2x]

I'm glad your brother is alive and doing well but it has been pretty well established that praying for others does nothing to influence their health. Praying for yourself does help, the same as a placebo.

As far as the questions you have about 'god's actions' they are valid. They were some of the first things that came to my mind when I lost my religion. god (sic), for being the universal arbitor of write of right and wrong is pretty inconsistent in doling out rewards and punishments. To me, that is inconsistent with being omnipotent.
I've read some studies that disagree.

Besides:

''Nobody has built a prayer-proof room and we would think it unethical to tell patients or relatives not to pray," he said. ''So, you cannot have a zero prayer control group."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/07/25/a_prayer_for_health/?page=2

[Hotpapa666]

"Scientists study prayer"

I read no further, sorry.

You refuse to read the article, why enter the discussion then?

[Hotpapa666]

I've read some studies that disagree.

Besides:



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/07/25/a_prayer_for_health/?page=2

Feel free to reference them here. I would be interested to read them.

I have read articles that say praying for one's own health does have a positive effect on health, never one that says praying for others helps.

[KinjaKahn]

Here's a lay article. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-30-voa60.cfm?CFID=221506841&CFTOKEN=43011942

Typical of these scientific quacks, attempting to study data they cannot confidently collect. I hope I didnt foot the bill for this fraudulent escapade. Anything for a paycheck I guess.

[Hotpapa666]

Typical of these scientific quacks, attempting to study data they cannot confidently collect. I hope I didnt foot the bill for this fraudulent escapade. Anything for a paycheck I guess.

Keep calling scientists quacks and using the products of science. Keep typing on the computer that scientists invented for you. Why am I not shocked that you fail to see the irony in your statements?

Someday, perhaps, you will learn that in intelligent discourse one attacks an arguement or a study on it's merits not the people who put forth the arguement or conduct the study. How about a little intelligent discourse Kinja?

[KinjaKahn]

Keep calling scientists quacks and using the products of science. Keep typing on the computer that scientists invented for you. Why am I not shocked that you fail to see the irony in your statements?

Someday, perhaps, you will learn that in intelligent discourse one attacks an arguement or a study on it's merits not the people who put forth the arguement or conduct the study. How about a little intelligent discourse Kinja?

Save your tears... defend the quacks... prove the existence of prayers. measure them, classify them, can you observe them without interfering? Is the data collected subject to external falsification?

[Ed Who?]

Keep calling scientists quacks and using the products of science. Keep typing on the computer that scientists invented for you. Why am I not shocked that you fail to see the irony in your statements?

Someday, perhaps, you will learn that in intelligent discourse one attacks an arguement or a study on it's merits not the people who put forth the arguement or conduct the study. How about a little intelligent discourse Kinja?

Any evidence that you can use against God can be used to establish that there is a God.

[Roy Munson]

Keep calling scientists quacks and using the products of science. Keep typing on the computer that scientists invented for you. Why am I not shocked that you fail to see the irony in your statements?

Someday, perhaps, you will learn that in intelligent discourse one attacks an arguement or a study on it's merits not the people who put forth the arguement or conduct the study. How about a little intelligent discourse Kinja?
You should know by now that you're not going to get it...

[Roy Munson]

Any evidence that you can use against God can be used to establish that there is a God.
Did God put the evidence there as a test of faith? Like the dinosaurs?

[Jiddy78]

Did God put the evidence there as a test of faith? Like the dinosaurs?

The dinosaurs denied Him. Bad idea...Extinction and not even a mention in His book...You should think about that for Bible II. No Roy...Not a psalm...Not a parable...Not even a verse...That would be a sad thing. Think about it.

[Roy Munson]

The dinosaurs denied Him. Bad idea...Extinction and not even a mention in His book...You should think about that for Bible II. No Roy...Not a psalm...Not a parable...Not even a verse...That would be a sad thing. Think about it.
History books are written by the winners as well.

[rip]

The Religious Debate (http://www.internetseriousbiz.com/2007/02/02/the-religious-debate/)

[ryr8828]

Job 40:15-24 (King James Version)



15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

[KinjaKahn]

Job 40:15-24 (King James Version)



15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Sounds like a brontosaurus to me!

[Hotpapa666]

Sounds like a brontosaurus to me!

Sounds like verse (as opposed to prose) about a big animal.

Besides, without something material, it is simply conjecture, like the virgin birth, like christ's assension, etc.. Show me the evidence of this animal, as it sits, simply on the page, it is no more substantial than a little girl's musings about a unicorn, perhaps a hollow one at that...

[Jiddy78]

Sounds like verse (as opposed to prose) about a big animal.

Besides, without something material, it is simply conjecture, like the virgin birth, like christ's assension, etc.. Show me the evidence of this animal, as it sits, simply on the page, it is no more substantial than a little girl's musings about a unicorn, perhaps a hollow one at that...

At some point if you just keep going backwards, no sweet lovin' created a being. I say twice is possible if once is a given.

Prove me wrong now.

[Hotpapa666]

At some point if you just keep going backwards, no sweet lovin' created a being. I say twice is possible if once is a given.

Prove me wrong now.

Sure, there have always been species that can procreate assexually. Somewhere along the line species began reproducing sexually, because it allowed for greater diversity of genetic material for the fillial generation, thus making it more likely that the species would survive a variety of environments and catastrophies. Then, somewhere along the way species that require sexual reproduction to produce the fillial generation came to be. There are certainly species that don't require sex to reproduce but humans aren't and never have been one of them.

[Jiddy78]

Sure, there have always been species that can procreate assexually. Somewhere along the line species began reproducing sexually, because it allowed for greater diversity of genetic material for the fillial generation, thus making it more likely that the species would survive a variety of environments and catastrophies. Then, somewhere along the way species that require sexual reproduction to produce the fillial generation came to be. There are certainly species that don't require sex to reproduce but humans aren't and never have been one of them.

I see no proof to that.

[Hotpapa666]

I see no proof to that.

Can't prove that something didn't happen. If it didn't happen there is no evidence. Proof requires evidence.

Here's a great opportunity to make a name for yourself. Do the study. Get a bunch, I don't know how many you will need, there have been Billions of girls born since we have been able to determine the genotype of the child, paternity, etc.., and there hasn't been a single documented case of the assexual birth of a human being, so you need at least, say 10 Billion, probably an order or two of magnitude more. Sit them in a room and wait. We'll know if it's possible...

[Jiddy78]

Can't prove that something didn't happen. If it didn't happen there is no evidence. Proof requires evidence.

Here's a great opportunity to make a name for yourself. Do the study. Get a bunch, I don't know how many you will need, there have been Billions of girls born since we have been able to determine the genotype of the child, paternity, etc.., and there hasn't been a single documented case of the assexual birth of a human being, so you need at least, say 10 Billion, probably an order or two of magnitude more. Sit them in a room and wait. We'll know if it's possible...

Huh? You stated a very distinct absolute. Note the "never" in your statement. That requires proof/evidence/whatever the f*ck you want to call it semantically. If none is provided, then I can only be expected to relegate it to conjecture and nothing more.

[Hotpapa666]

Huh? You stated a very distinct absolute. Note the "never" in your statement. That requires proof/evidence/whatever the f*ck you want to call it semantically. If none is provided, then I can only be expected to relegate it to conjecture and nothing more.

Where is the conjecture? You really want me to prove that an event, for which there is no evidence to support it occuring, didn't happen?

I am curious what kind of evidence is possible for this? Short of the study I preposed that is.

[Jiddy78]

Where is the conjecture? You really want me to prove that an event, for which there is no evidence to support it occuring, didn't happen?

I am curious what kind of evidence is possible for this? Short of the study I preposed that is.

Good for the goose...

Reap what you sow...

One good turn...

To every action...

Anything you can do...

[Hotpapa666]

Good for the goose...

Reap what you sow...

One good turn...

To every action...

Anything you can do...

Except that you aren't holding me to any standard that I am holding anyone else to. If something happened, there is evidence that it happened. Evidence which can be pieced together to tell the story. If something didn't happen there is no evidence of it not happening. That's a triple negative screaming no, no, no. Evidence of something not happening is impossible to provide because it has not, does not and will not exisist, forever and ever. If something didn't happen there isn't evidence that it didn't happen.

[Jiddy78]

Except that you aren't holding me to any standard that I am holding anyone else to. If something happened, there is evidence that it happened. Evidence which can be pieced together to tell the story. If something didn't happen there is no evidence of it not happening. That's a triple negative screaming no, no, no. Evidence of something not happening is impossible to provide because it has not, does not and will not exisist, forever and ever. If something didn't happen there isn't evidence that it didn't happen.


You really want me to prove that an event, for which there is no evidence to support it occuring, didn't happen?

Creation is not an "event?"

F*cking is not an "event?"

I think I was addressing your statement just fine.

[Hotpapa666]

Creation is not an "event?"

F*cking is not an "event?"

I think I was addressing your statement just fine.

You weren't addressing these issues. You wanted me to give me evidence that something didn't happen.

Creation is certainly an event. An event for which there has been proferred zero evidence.

Is this whole thing about this sentence : There are certainly species that don't require sex to reproduce but humans aren't and never have been one of them.? If so, let me just say, that in nearly a century of zoological research, billions of live human births, never is as close as to the correct word to describe the possibilty of a human having had, having, or will have in the future a birth without an additional member of the P generation.

[Jiddy78]

You weren't addressing these issues. You wanted me to give me evidence that something didn't happen.

Creation is certainly an event. An event for which there has been proferred zero evidence.

Is this whole thing about this sentence : There are certainly species that don't require sex to reproduce but humans aren't and never have been one of them.? If so, let me just say, that in nearly a century of zoological research, billions of live human births, never is as close as to the correct word to describe the possibilty of a human having had, having, or will have in the future a birth without an additional member of the P generation.

No...I want you to give me evidence that f*cking ALWAYS happens....Forever...Throughout history. Every single time. Can you do that?

[Hotpapa666]

No...I want you to give me evidence that f*cking ALWAYS happens....Forever...Throughout history. Every single time. Can you do that?


Of course my answer is that I can't. Is that the hook on which you want to hang a virgin birth of christ? The fact that I can't go back through history and do the genetics on every person who ever lived to determine that they had two Ps? You are starting to apply the same absurb levels of "proof" that the anti-evolutionist want.

[giddyup4]

Finally, the proof i was looking for that there is a God.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Aui1sY1nnZDfZCUkCJhMMJxDubYF?slug=ap-nflnetwork-gumbel&prov=ap&type=lgns

[thrasymachus]

No...I want you to give me evidence that f*cking ALWAYS happens....Forever...Throughout history. Every single time. Can you do that?
Do you believe that the Earth was ever flat? Would it be improper to say "The Earth was never flat" without providing proof?

[Jiddy78]

Do you believe that the Earth was ever flat? Would it be improper to say "The Earth was never flat" without providing proof?


Should I rule out the possibility that it was? If I believe in a supreme all-powerful being, I could easily believe that he made something flat circular.

Proof proof proof...That's all I hear...where there is none...and frankly, I'm not buying that proof is necessary on either side...but I constantly hear one side of the argument blabbering about facts and proof...I prefer not to argue circularly.

[thrasymachus]

Should I rule out the possibility that it was? If I believe in a supreme all-powerful being, I could easily believe that he made something flat circular.

Proof proof proof...That's all I hear...where there is none...and frankly, I'm not buying that proof is necessary on either side...but I constantly hear one side of the argument blabbering about facts and proof...I prefer not to argue circularly.
At what point does discussion of possibility become meaningless then? Under that standard, anything is possible. Do you believe that, then?

[Jiddy78]

At what point does discussion of possibility become meaningless then? Under that standard, anything is possible. Do you believe that, then?

Yes. Just not all during this lifetime of ours here on earth.

[domenick2x]

You weren't addressing these issues. You wanted me to give me evidence that something didn't happen.

Creation is certainly an event. An event for which there has been proferred zero evidence.

Is this whole thing about this sentence : There are certainly species that don't require sex to reproduce but humans aren't and never have been one of them.? If so, let me just say, that in nearly a century of zoological research, billions of live human births, never is as close as to the correct word to describe the possibilty of a human having had, having, or will have in the future a birth without an additional member of the P generation.

*looks around*

*hangs head, hides from impending nothingness*

[thrasymachus]

Yes. Just not all during this lifetime of ours here on earth.
So it's possible that God never existed or no longer exists.

[giddyup4]

I believe distortion is a key element here in this thread. Another word for distortion is the ego. The ego is like the earths atmosphere. When we look at the universe from earth we get a distorted view because of our atmosphere but if we get past it we have a clear view of what the universe truthfully holds.

[giddyup4]

I believe distortion is a key element here in this thread. Another word for distortion is the ego. The ego is like the earths atmosphere. When we look at the universe from earth we get a distorted view because of our atmosphere but if we get past it we have a clear view of what the universe truthfully holds.


WOW! Im surprised I didnt get any feed back on this. The ego is something we can all do without.

[LSU]

WOW! Im surprised I didnt get any feed back on this. The ego is something we can all do without.



Perhaps part of the ego we can do without is the expectation that people will jump to respond to posts.


Oh snap.

[Smoke681]

Perhaps part of the ego we can do without is the expectation that people will jump to respond to posts.


Oh snap.
My ego wouldn't allow me to respond.

[Jiddy78]

So it's possible that God never existed or no longer exists.

So?

[Jiddy78]

Of course my answer is that I can't. Is that the hook on which you want to hang a virgin birth of christ? The fact that I can't go back through history and do the genetics on every person who ever lived to determine that they had two Ps? You are starting to apply the same absurb levels of "proof" that the anti-evolutionist want.

Move along then and leave me to my belief and I'll leave you to yours. Come back when you have "evidence of no god."

[LSU]

So?



So let's dance!

http://www.filmbuffonline.com/images/Dangerfield2.jpg

[Jiddy78]

Perhaps part of the ego we can do without is the expectation that people will jump to respond to posts.


Oh snap.

You would have got a pwned picture...but you went and gave yourself a pat on the back...Double dipping ain't my thing.

[Jiddy78]

So let's dance!

http://www.filmbuffonline.com/images/Dangerfield2.jpg

This is pretty much where wifey and I end up after discussing this topic....and up til recently, much much more.

[LSU]

You would have got a pwned picture...but you went and gave yourself a pat on the back...Double dipping ain't my thing.

I'll settle for...

http://www.accesswave.ca/~rclancey/lmao.jpg

[LSU]

Move along then and leave me to my belief and I'll leave you to yours. Come back when you have "evidence of no god."



I think where a lot of the angst comes in is not with people like you that have this attitude of "leave each other alone" but with those that bring it up in every conversation and push it on others.

But eventually the people that would prefer to stay neutral get sucked into such a discussion.

[Hotpapa666]

Move along then and leave me to my belief and I'll leave you to yours. Come back when you have "evidence of no god."

You want evidence of nothing again. Again, it is impossible to provide evidence against something that never happened. Sorry Jiddy, but you are talking like a flat earther.

[Smoke681]

You want evidence of nothing again. Again, it is impossible to provide evidence against something that never happened. Sorry Jiddy, but you are talking like a flat earther.
Well this is a pretty convenient debate for you, now isn't it.

PROVE YOUR SIDE!

No, you prove YOUR side!

I can't! It's impossible! I win!

[Roy Munson]

Well this is a pretty convenient debate for you, now isn't it.

PROVE YOUR SIDE!

No, you prove YOUR side!

I can't! It's impossible! I win!
Proving the existence of something should be easier than proving the non-existence of something.

Prove to me that bigfoot doesn't exist.

can't be done.

[Jiddy78]

Proving the existence of something should be easier than proving the non-existence of something.

Prove to me that bigfoot doesn't exist.

can't be done.

I never said bigfoot didn't exist...nor request proof of said existence OR non-existence. I just go along on my happy way. Hey! What an idle concept! :rolleyes:

[Jiddy78]

You want evidence of nothing again. Again, it is impossible to provide evidence against something that never happened. Sorry Jiddy, but you are talking like a flat earther.

Which one has been proven incorrect:

The earth is not flat.

The earth is round.

Get back to me when you make the distinction.

[Jiddy78]

Well this is a pretty convenient debate for you, now isn't it.

PROVE YOUR SIDE!

No, you prove YOUR side!

I can't! It's impossible! I win!

Me...You...Edge of the world. Let's do this.

http://cinepad.com/images/thelma.jpg

[Roy Munson]

I never said bigfoot didn't exist...nor request proof of said existence OR non-existence. I just go along on my happy way. Hey! What an idle concept! :rolleyes:
you can't be happy until I'm happy first.

[Jiddy78]

you can't be happy until I'm happy first.

You're really a broad, aren't you?

[Roy Munson]

You're really a broad, aren't you?
my shaved legs only tell part of the story.

[LSU]

my shaved legs only tell part of the story.

Your shaved beaver tells the rest?

[Roy Munson]

Your shaved beaver tells the rest?
you have to leave a little something.

[IBC]

you have to leave a little something.

Landing strip.

[giddyup4]

Perhaps part of the ego we can do without is the expectation that people will jump to respond to posts.


Oh snap.

Or maybe the part that thinks we are smarter than everyone.;)

[LSU]

Or maybe the part that thinks we are smarter than everyone.;)


If only egos were limited to such aggornce.

[Hotpapa666]

Which one has been proven incorrect:

The earth is not flat.

The earth is round.

Get back to me when you make the distinction.


Huh?

I think you are confusing the issue. Proving existence is different than proving characteristics of a known thing.

Besides, the earth isn't round, it's spheroid, 3D.

[MTVike]

Look in the mirror, HP.

What do you see?

A piece of evolutionary meat walking around...?

Or something unique from the rest of creation.

Nobody here can convince you of the reality of God, unless you are willing to consider the possiblilty yourself, of your own accord.

Have you?

[LSU]

Look in the mirror, HP.

What do you see?

A piece of evolutionary meat walking around...?

Or something unique from the rest of creation.

Nobody here can convince you of the reality of God, unless you are willing to consider the possiblilty yourself, of your own accord.

Have you?


Where are you with this type of shit when people are demanding exact proof of evolution or other such scientific theories? Same thing applies.

[Hotpapa666]

Look in the mirror, HP.

What do you see?

A piece of evolutionary meat walking around...?

Or something unique from the rest of creation.

Nobody here can convince you of the reality of God, unless you are willing to consider the possiblilty yourself, of your own accord.

Have you?

I see evolutionary meat, handsome evolutionary meat that often needs a shave...

I certainly have considered the possibility. I've documented my fall from religion here before. I used to be believe in god. I used to make absurd arguments against evolution like the ones that get thrown around on this BB; building an intricate frome work to prop my ideas on. It was a sham, I stopped fighting the libraries full of data and now the world makes sense.

[Jiddy78]

Huh?

I think you are confusing the issue. Proving existence is different than proving characteristics of a known thing.

Besides, the earth isn't round, it's spheroid, 3D.

That last semantic, yeah, even back in the f*cking "stupid" days they understood elevations...so yeah, flat-earther is quite a stupid f*cking comment if you want to play THAT f*cking game. :rolleyes:

I'm not confused at all. I'm rejecting your concept of evidence not being needed for a negative (or whatever f*cking palabra you'd like to use to explain it since you are soooo attentive to detail). I'd say that's been pretty easy to pick up.

[domenick2x]

Where are you with this type of shit when people are demanding exact proof of evolution or other such scientific theories? Same thing applies.
I still don't see anything in Evolution that excludes God, and vice versa.

[giddyup4]

If only egos were limited to such aggornce.

So true, so true. The ego is a tricky bastard.

[giddyup4]

I see evolutionary meat, handsome evolutionary meat that often needs a shave...

I certainly have considered the possibility. I've documented my fall from religion here before. I used to be believe in god. I used to make absurd arguments against evolution like the ones that get thrown around on this BB; building an intricate frome work to prop my ideas on. It was a sham, I stopped fighting the libraries full of data and now the world makes sense.

Dont get me wrong cause i believe we evolved backed by a higher power. The one thing you have to keep in mind is that "data" is only as good as the person entering it. People make mistakes. We have to take that into consideration.

[LSU]

I still don't see anything in Evolution that excludes God, and vice versa.


I don't either.

[LSU]

Dont get me wrong cause i believe we evolved backed by a higher power. The one thing you have to keep in mind is that "data" is only as good as the person entering it. People make mistakes. We have to take that into consideration.


I guess that holds true if you think multiple people have made the same mistake in repeated studies over the course of 150 years in multiple scientific disciplines.

[MTVike]

Where are you with this type of shit when people are demanding exact proof of evolution or other such scientific theories? Same thing applies.

God is a bigger story for me.

I have no problems incorporating what I little I know about evolutionalry theory into my view of the world.

It seems to be an explanatory statement that fits the facts.

[LSU]

God is a bigger story for me.

I have no problems incorporating what I little I know about evolutionalry theory into my view of the world.

It seems to be an explanatory statement that fits the facts.



It's not about you, per se, but just the logic of it. If you're going to ask for evidence of something (whether it be God, evolution, sasquatch, etc) you have to have already made up your mind that you'd be open to understanding it, and potentially learning more about it. If you go into that sort of question with the idea that you don't believe, you will never believe it, and there's nothing realistically that can be done to change your mind...

Then just stay out of the conversation.

[MTVike]

It's not about you, per se, but just the logic of it. If you're going to ask for evidence of something (whether it be God, evolution, sasquatch, etc) you have to have already made up your mind that you'd be open to understanding it, and potentially learning more about it. If you go into that sort of question with the idea that you don't believe, you will never believe it, and there's nothing realistically that can be done to change your mind...

Then just stay out of the conversation.

I feel you.

People do get entrenched in their belief systems and do feel threatened and become defensive when when those beliefs are logically challenged.

You (not you per se ;)) may still be making inroads into people's way of thinking about the world, whether you see it evidenced here or not.

[LSU]

I feel you.

People do get entrenched in their belief systems and do feel threatened and become defensive when when those beliefs are logically challenged.

You (not you per se ;)) may still be making inroads into people's way of thinking about the world, whether you see it evidenced here or not.

I'm making inroads like a mofo.

[MTVike]

I'm making inroads like a mofo.

Well, you do want to become a teacher, right?

May I call you Dr. Dick for now?

[Jiddy78]

I feel you.

People do get entrenched in their belief systems and do feel threatened and become defensive when when those beliefs are logically challenged.

You (not you per se ;)) may still be making inroads into people's way of thinking about the world, whether you see it evidenced here or not.

Asking a question you already know the answer to is illogical, I would bet.

[MTVike]

Asking a question you already know the answer to is illogical, I would bet.

People are also looking for confirmation from others...consensual validation of what they believe.

[Ed Who?]

I see evolutionary meat, handsome evolutionary meat that often needs a shave...

I certainly have considered the possibility. I've documented my fall from religion here before. I used to be believe in god. I used to make absurd arguments against evolution like the ones that get thrown around on this BB; building an intricate frome work to prop my ideas on. It was a sham, I stopped fighting the libraries full of data and now the world makes sense.

And you could still be wrong.

[Ed Who?]

I don't either.

In my mindset, God will explain everything someday.

[LSU]

Well, you do want to become a teacher, right?

May I call you Dr. Dick for now?



Not really.

Not really.


I'm not big on the "Dr." thing. Regardless of what stupid shit I may say here or there.

If I do go into academia, I'll likely be referred to as "Dr." by undergrads. But if I have any grad students, or talk with grad students of other faculty, I'll likely ask for first-name-basis discussions, unless the prefer otherwise. Some grad students have issues with calling professors by their first names. Whatever.

My master's advisor was Joe. That's how I and other grad students knew him. Seemed easier that way.

[LSU]

In my mindset, God will explain everything someday.


In the time being, I'll try to understand everything today.


So as to make it a much more fruitful discussion someday.

[Roy Munson]

In my mindset, God will explain everything someday.
I'm impatient...

[giddyup4]

I guess that holds true if you think multiple people have made the same mistake in repeated studies over the course of 150 years in multiple scientific disciplines.

There is error in everything. Why? Cause we are human. Im not saying that all the studies are inaccurate, just the possibility.

[LSU]

There is error in everything. Why? Cause we are human. Im not saying that all the studies are inaccurate, just the possibility.


That's why statistics are used. When they can be. The errors would have to be repeatedly replicated. I know that's redundant. Not to mention pass through peer review without being noticed. And then read and nobody picks up on it.

That's a lot of inaccuracies along the way for a theory to happen to come across and still come out alive.

[fahvra]

'fictional being' dammit.

eh that doesnt have the same ring to it.

[fahvra]

finding out that there was no such thing as santa clause was pretty traumatic as child, I guess finding out other fictional characters dont exist is even harder as an adult.

[ryr8828]

finding out that there was no such thing as santa clause was pretty traumatic as child, I guess finding out other fictional characters dont exist is even harder as an adult.

I had no problem finding out there was no Santa, neither did my kids or any kids I've known.
I can prove Santa doesn't exist because I know that I'm the one who puts the presents under the tree. You can't prove God doesn't exist because you may be able to explain how the tree gets there but you can't prove how the planet the tree is located on got here.

[fahvra]

I had no problem finding out there was no Santa, neither did my kids or any kids I've known.
I can prove Santa doesn't exist because I know that I'm the one who puts the presents under the tree. You can't prove God doesn't exist because you may be able to explain how the tree gets there but you can't prove how the planet the tree is located on got here.

did you fall asleep during science class or did they not teach that when you were a kid? I had to wait until high school because my parochial grade school didnt have science for fear that we might learn something different than their creation fantasy.

[ryr8828]

did you fall asleep during science class or did they not teach that when you were a kid? I had to wait until high school because my parochial grade school didnt have science for fear that we might learn something different than their creation fantasy.

Let's pretend I was asleep in class and you explain the beginning of existence to me.

[Vegas]

Let's pretend I was asleep in class and you explain the beginning of existence to me.

And be sure to show your proof.

[fahvra]

Let's pretend I was asleep in class and you explain the beginning of existence to me.

google the big bang or charles darwin or just go ahead and keep believing everything magically got here in a week.

[ryr8828]

google the big bang or charles darwin or just go ahead and keep believing everything magically got here in a week.

Your explanation sounds pretty magical to me.

Poof, something created by nothing from nothing.

[fahvra]

Your explanation sounds pretty magical to me.

Poof, something created by nothing from nothing.



dude, youre too old for anyone to change your mind on anything, Ive known you for long enough, youre no different than any of my relatives of the same age. so if believing makes you feel good, by all means keep it up, Im all for it.

its doesnt change the fact that there isnt a god.

[fahvra]

And be sure to show your proof.


sorry, I dont have the bible:rolleyes: to back me up.

[ryr8828]

dude, youre too old for anyone to change your mind on anything, Ive known you for long enough, youre no different than any of my relatives of the same age. so if believing makes you feel good, by all means keep it up, Im all for it.

its doesnt change the fact that there isnt a god.

This seems important to you for some reason. I've always wondered why it's important for someone to deny that there is a God.

I don't really believe in Bigfoot but I don't argue about his existence with people that swear he is real.

[fahvra]

This seems important to you for some reason. I've always wondered why it's important for someone to deny that there is a God.

I don't really believe in Bigfoot but I don't argue about his existence with people that swear he is real.



I didnt start the thread, but I do enjoy debating just about everything, so I put my two heathen cents in.

[Jiddy78]

I didnt start the thread, but I do enjoy debating just about everything, so I put my two heathen cents in.

You seem like a homophobe type...Score one for heathens capable of being homophobes as well.

[fahvra]

You seem like a homophobe type...Score one for heathens capable of being homophobes as well.

Im not a conservative nor am I a bible thumper or a redneck, so the chance of me being a homophobe while not be a any of those three is pretty f*ckin slim, slim.

[Jiddy78]

Im not a conservative nor am I a bible thumper or a redneck, so the chance of me being a homophobe while not be a any of those three is pretty f*ckin slim, slim.

I look forward to pinching your ass. ;)

[Hotpapa666]

That last semantic, yeah, even back in the f*cking "stupid" days they understood elevations...so yeah, flat-earther is quite a stupid f*cking comment if you want to play THAT f*cking game. :rolleyes:

I'm not confused at all. I'm rejecting your concept of evidence not being needed for a negative (or whatever f*cking palabra you'd like to use to explain it since you are soooo attentive to detail). I'd say that's been pretty easy to pick up.

What crawled up your ass?

I simply stated a well understood concept of logic and philosophy.

[Ed Who?]

its doesnt change the fact that there isnt a god.

Perhaps you should go back to school. The fact that you declare the absence of a God as fact completely discredits you.

[fahvra]

I look forward to pinching your ass. ;)

me too.:eek:

[fahvra]

Perhaps you should go back to school. The fact that you declare the absence of a God as fact completely discredits you.

I can declare it a fact because its impossible for you to prove me wrong.

[Roy Munson]

I can declare it a fact because its impossible for you to prove me wrong.
I would think a fact would require you to be able to prove it correct.

[Jiddy78]

What crawled up your ass?

I simply stated a well understood concept of logic and philosophy.

A spheroid?

[LSU]

I can declare it a fact because its impossible for you to prove me wrong.



http://cowlander.neobahumut.com/LOL%20PICTURES/LMAO.jpg

[Jiddy78]

http://cowlander.neobahumut.com/LOL%20PICTURES/LMAO.jpg

Oh...I see...Once the next big thing comes along you leave us to the curb....Slut.

[LSU]

Oh...I see...Once the next big thing comes along you leave us to the curb....Slut.



Nope. My original intent was to go with the old duffers. The first one I found didn't load, so I kept searching. Rather than finding the fallback site, this one came up first. So I went with it. Besides. Don't fear change.

[LSU]

Nope. My original intent was to go with the old duffers. The first one I found didn't load, so I kept searching. Rather than finding the fallback site, this one came up first. So I went with it. Besides. Don't fear change.

As it turns out, it was only one page further.


http://www.haxed.co.uk/gallery/albums/ownage/lmao-real.jpg

[Hotpapa666]

A spheroid?

I'm not particularly interested in playing one these cutesy little games where folks around here try and out clever one another using the fewests words possible. Care to flesh out an actual argument?

[Ed Who?]

I'm not particularly interested in playing one these cutesy little games where folks around here try and out clever one another using the fewests words possible. Care to flesh out an actual argument?

Chicken or egg?

[LSU]

Chicken or egg?



Egg

[Jiddy78]

I'm not particularly interested in playing one these cutesy little games where folks around here try and out clever one another using the fewests words possible. Care to flesh out an actual argument?

What argument? There is no argument.

You get semantical and you receive cutesy. Sorry...That's the way it is. I'm not particularly interested in what you are particularly interested in in these regards.

[Jiddy78]

Egg

How did the chicken that hatched survive?

[LSU]

How did the chicken that hatched survive?


It ate food and drank water.

[Hotpapa666]

What argument? There is no argument.

You get semantical and you receive cutesy. Sorry...That's the way it is. I'm not particularly interested in what you are particularly interested in in these regards.

You want to write off a legit. point on terms of logic as semantics? Gimme a break.

[Jiddy78]

You want to write off a legit. point on terms of logic as semantics? Gimme a break.

I don't see your point regarding not needing evidence as legitimate. I see it as a copout.

When I referenced semantics, it was in regards to your smartass spheroid comment...You want intelligent discourse but you play silly little belittling games...Take that sh*t elsewhere and stop acting like YOU need a break from some sort of stupidity...That reeks of elitism.

[LSU]

I don't see your point regarding not needing evidence as legitimate. I see it as a copout.

When I referenced semantics, it was in regards to your smartass spheroid comment...You want intelligent discourse but you play silly little belittling games...Take that sh*t elsewhere and stop acting like YOU need a break from some sort of stupidity...That reeks of elitism.



Papa went to private school?

[Jiddy78]

Papa went to private school?

Dunno.

My kid isn't going to private school and I wish I could go back and have gone public.

[LSU]

Dunno.

My kid isn't going to private school and I wish I could go back and have gone public.


And risk becoming amoral with those liberal heathenish public school teachers?

[Jiddy78]

And risk becoming amoral with those liberal heathenish public school teachers?

Our house is already amoral...One of us follows child molesters and the other is a heathen.

[LSU]

Our house is already amoral...One of us follows child molesters and the other is a heathen.

That's good to know.

[domenick2x]

Dunno.

My kid isn't going to private school and I wish I could go back and have gone public.
Seriously?

I'm so glad that my wife convinced me to consider the private school for my daughter. Kindergarten, and I'm shelling out a significant portion of my income, and it's only going to get worse.

But I see what my daughter is doing, what she's capable of... and I see she's already ahead of where I was. She's doing some things that I have in my memories of 2nd grade. And she's HAPPY.

That's not to say that she wouldn't be in the same place if she was in a public school, but it does help me sleep at night.

[Roy Munson]

I don't see your point regarding not needing evidence as legitimate. I see it as a copout.

When I referenced semantics, it was in regards to your smartass spheroid comment...You want intelligent discourse but you play silly little belittling games...Take that sh*t elsewhere and stop acting like YOU need a break from some sort of stupidity...That reeks of elitism.
ELITIST!!!!!!!!!!

newest buzzword.

[Jiddy78]

Seriously?

I'm so glad that my wife convinced me to consider the private school for my daughter. Kindergarten, and I'm shelling out a significant portion of my income, and it's only going to get worse.

But I see what my daughter is doing, what she's capable of... and I see she's already ahead of where I was. She's doing some things that I have in my memories of 2nd grade. And she's HAPPY.

That's not to say that she wouldn't be in the same place if she was in a public school, but it does help me sleep at night.

Absolutely...My wife and I will establish math as a strength rather than a fear, which was rampant in my private school upbringing...Buncha lazy sloths...No different. Sh*t...She's better at math than I am...Big time...She = public school upbringing. Me = private.

[Jiddy78]

ELITIST!!!!!!!!!!

newest buzzword.

Is it my honor of breaking the seal on this board?

Asshole is usually my word of choice...but if there's an option that is less polarizing when dealing directly with somebody rather than in general, I prefer that.

[LSU]

Absolutely...My wife and I will establish math as a strength rather than a fear, which was rampant in my private school upbringing...Buncha lazy sloths...No different. Sh*t...She's better at math than I am...Big time...She = public school upbringing. Me = private.



1/2 of 3rd through 11th grade was me in the public school of a relatively small town (10,000 people) in Arkansas.

I'll let the reader take that along whichever path they choose.

[Roy Munson]

Absolutely...My wife and I will establish math as a strength rather than a fear, which was rampant in my private school upbringing...Buncha lazy sloths...No different. Sh*t...She's better at math than I am...Big time...She = public school upbringing. Me = private.
all depends on what type of private school...

[domenick2x]

all depends on what type of private school...
I'm guessing Jiddy went to a religious-based private school.

[Jiddy78]

I'm guessing Jiddy went to a religious-based private school.

Catholic all the way...K-Diploma.

[Hotpapa666]

I don't see your point regarding not needing evidence as legitimate. I see it as a copout.

When I referenced semantics, it was in regards to your smartass spheroid comment...You want intelligent discourse but you play silly little belittling games...Take that sh*t elsewhere and stop acting like YOU need a break from some sort of stupidity...That reeks of elitism.



Thanks for the advice captian. However, calling the earth round is just as inaccurate as calling it flat, cubical, or any other geometrical term other than spheroid. If my pointing that out really upset you enough to prompt this tirade, well... Intelligent discourse is all that I am after.

[Roy Munson]

Catholic all the way...K-Diploma.
not too big on the science and math, I guess.

[domenick2x]

not too big on the science and math, I guess.
God is not a being of science OR math.

Pray.

[Roy Munson]

God is not a being of science OR math.

Pray.
I pray that this quadratic equation will solve itself...

[Jiddy78]

Thanks for the advice captian. However, calling the earth round is just as inaccurate as calling it flat, cubical, or any other geometrical term other than spheroid. If my pointing that out really upset you enough to prompt this tirade, well... Intelligent discourse is all that I am after.

Your signature day in and day out includes the concept of defecating. No doubt in my mind about you are all about intelligent discourse...On the plus side, you're a crappy elitist. Now that I've given you a backhanded compliment, should I request intelligent discourse?

[fahvra]

Dunno.

My kid isn't going to private school and I wish I could go back and have gone public.

same here, there is no way anyone could convince me to send my child to a private school, just because of my experience alone.

[fahvra]

I pray that this quadratic equation will solve itself...

LMFAO.