I went to Mass yesterday and the priest gave an interesting homily related to this. The priest grew up an atheist, and went to Texas A & M to study physics, still an atheist. What ultimately turned him to religion is how some things in the universe exist, despite seeming to contradict the laws of physics. For example, he noted the earths orbit of the sun and the fact that Newtons first law says that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. He also mentioned Newtons third law which states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Both laws are accepted by anyone who even half understands physics. So the question he asked is, what started the earth in Motion? If there was an equal and opposite reaction that set the earth in motion, where is the object or force that reacted when the earth went into motion? He saw a number of things in the universe and wondered the same thing. He came to the conclusion that the only logical answer was that there was something supernatural involved (God). Now having been convinced of God's existence by science of all things, which God is the actual one that existed? He concluded it was the Christian God and that his messiah was Jesus Christ who he believed founded the Catholic Church. Long story short, after drawing these conclusions he ended up in seminary later in life and is now a priest.

Other than this priest, many people have had experiences that can not be explained by science. It is this, that I believe is the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

*I want to know, I’m happiest when I do know and really I’m not that comfortable with not knowing but I’m less happy/comfortable to pretend I know when really I don’t.


I cannot argue with that, nobody has a clue to how or what started this.

The problem with most thoughts about the Universe beginnings...is that we keep trying to apply our 'methods of beginnings' to something that has nothing to do with a mother & a father.
We think everything requires a vag & a penis to set things off - only in our minds.

These things are far beyond the current level of human comprehension, but we are moving in the right direction by continued persistence.
-------------------------------
Big Bang - A BIG Boom=Universe begins.
-------------------------------
String Theory Big Bang (one version of many)
(imagine a still shot after a fireworks candle explodes - ALL those exploding sparkles-freeze! Each is a Big Bang = Each is a Universe, therefore Multi-verses are crated AND we are just one of many.

It doesn't matter which is correct, but a sky dude spinning magic is completely out of the running.

BN747

I cannot argue, because there is no real evidence or answer until we die and then there maybe nothing, But!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wise is the person who covers all the bases. Denial? Not for me.

Understood, but as I've (and still am) pondering what happens at death, consciousness I think fades as cerebral activity slows and finally ceasing altogether. factually at the death, one of 4 forces of nature kicks in (it's happening now to everyone) the weak nuclear force is at work deterioating what your DNA has decided on which cells will go first. As they fail, the next candidate takes center stage and on and on. That's nature at work in all things...everything this Universe gives life to MUST die at some point - it's the order of things.

I reconcile that a dying brain is like that of car accident victim, who survives but all brain activity ceases as the person has suffered permanent brain damage - that means all their memories are forever frozen and therefore gone and as those synapses cease, the cells dies (just like muscle atrophy in space from non-usage), memories are slowly erased. In the death it must be the same or similar. But I could be wrong, perhaps there is a place consciousness survives - BUT I'm highly skeptical of that.

It's great to 'have all bases covered' in thought...but I cannot find the energy to invest in something scientific advances have rendered 'pointless'. But it is fun to ponder along with the infinite number of possibilities that exist ..that we are not currently aware of.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

The problem with most thoughts about the Universe beginnings...is that we keep trying to apply our 'methods of beginnings' to something that has nothing to do with a mother & a father.
We think everything requires a vag & a penis to set things off - only in our minds.

These things are far beyond the current level of human comprehension, but we are moving in the right direction by continued persistence.
-------------------------------
Big Bang - A BIG Boom=Universe begins.
-------------------------------
String Theory Big Bang (one version of many)
(imagine a still shot after a fireworks candle explodes - ALL those exploding sparkles-freeze! Each is a Big Bang = Each is a Universe, therefore Multi-verses are crated AND we are just one of many.

It doesn't matter which is correct, but a sky dude spinning magic is completely out of the running.

BN747

I am not the most religious person for sure. I just look around, and ponder how this all has come to pass. It seems to be a Grand design. How did this tiny rock in our Solar system just happen to be where it would create life, never mind sustain it. Too far-fetched to me.

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I am not the most religious person for sure. I just look around, and ponder how this all has come to pass. It seems to be a Grand design. How did this tiny rock in our Solar system just happen to be where it would create life, never mind sustain it. Too far-fetched to me.

Well your question is a good one, but worked for me was recalling a childhood memory.
I was visiting an aunt in Philadelphia one summer. I took the trash out one day and thought nothing more of it. A few fays later I did the same - but this time before adding more garbage into the bin....I noticed a ripped hole in the trash bag from the previous day - this time I saw maggots crawling about and I knew they weren't there the days before.

That thought didn't comeback to me until decades later when living in a dive apartment near Hollywood Blvd, while removing my roommate's cat from the window's ledge, I chipped a piece of rotting world uncovering a wave of termites...and I thought to myself, 'do I destroy their world because how gross it looked'...instead I peeled away more wood and uncovered even more of the critters.

Years later while stargazing with my telescope...I thought of those past events and a thought came to mind. What if I could sit on a sofa and observe Earth the same way as I viewed the termites and maggots - would we look the same to non-Earth eyes? Moving on about our business without a care in the world...until someone decides to disrupt our seeming tranquility.

I then thought of the sudden appearance of the maggots...now I understood it 'was' favorable conditions that allowed them to thrive.

THAT..explained evolution to me (along with having learned about evolution by then), but it makes sense to me that the undersea volcanoes and those above water at one time dominated Earth. The recent Volcano activity in Hawaii ADDED more land to the former coastline. As it cools (the steam flows into atmosphere creating rain and falling back making way for lush grass, plants to grow - look at images of Hawaii with it's underwater foundation, it become clear that's how the entire chain of islands are simply volcanoes breaching the ocean surface).

Conditions make it make it all possible, the Hawaii event is a microview of how the whole Earth must have started off - being 93 million miles from healthy heat source keeps it all going.

And ocean bed thermal vents trigger (perfect conditions) for sea life which most (if ever) have seen the native animals thriving there. The same process is playing out on several moons as proven from missions of Cassini & Galileo..

https://www.space.com/42230-jupiter-moo ... spots.html
If Jupiter's moon Europa has geysers, the natural engines that power them are well-hidden.

Scientists have re-examined data from NASA's Galileo mission in greater detail in search of regions on Europa warm enough to be linked to plumes of water vapor. If hotspots exist on this moon — which harbors a huge ocean of liquid water beneath its icy shell — they will most likely remain hidden until NASA's Europa Clipper spacecraft arrives at Jupiter in the late 2020s or early 2030s, the researchers determined.

In 2016, scientists announced the provisional detection of a faint plume on Europa using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. A second unconfirmed plume was announced the following year. Since then, the moon has remained quiet, and scientists have debated whether the features spotted by the space telescope were actually caused by wafting water vapor. [Possible Water Plumes on Europa: The Discovery in Images]

Only a viable heat source can do that.

So if our ocean floors can trigger unusual critter growth, then what is stopping other worlds, even icy ones like Io, Europa and Enceladus hold huge water worlds beneath their icy crust...one of them holds more water than on this planet. Two of them make the top 10 largest bodies in the Solar System (including the Sun in number).

So, who decides what, how, where life thrives? Humans or Nature?

My money is on Nature, all the way...even in situations that make no sense to us.

So while we breath...live that life to the fullest, because as I said before...like a milk carton, we all have an expiration date stamped in our DNA (or forbid a tragic accident).
But as nature dictates, everything in this Universe that born...must die. Everything...ans some dreamed up guy living on clouds has no say it who can avoid that fate....even our Sun.

Everything MUST go - some get a better lease on life than others.

You don't speak be a linguist in other to speak Spanish...you just need the will, the desire.
You don't have to be professional Cosmologist to under the Galaxy..but getting a telescope will set you onto the path of understanding what 'professional Cosmologist' discuss.

But if you've never had interest, then it is not for you. And discussing as much with someone with no clue of (see comments above) what is going on, I might as well be speaking Chinese (and I know few lines beyond Chinese menu items) to a inner city gangbanger. The longer you wait to jump aboard...the harder it becomes to get on board.



BN747

apodino wrote:

I went to Mass yesterday and the priest gave an interesting homily related to this. The priest grew up an atheist, and went to Texas A & M to study physics, still an atheist. What ultimately turned him to religion is how some things in the universe exist, despite seeming to contradict the laws of physics. For example, he noted the earths orbit of the sun and the fact that Newtons first law says that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. He also mentioned Newtons third law which states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Both laws are accepted by anyone who even half understands physics. So the question he asked is, what started the earth in Motion? If there was an equal and opposite reaction that set the earth in motion, where is the object or force that reacted when the earth went into motion? He saw a number of things in the universe and wondered the same thing. He came to the conclusion that the only logical answer was that there was something supernatural involved (God). Now having been convinced of God's existence by science of all things, which God is the actual one that existed? He concluded it was the Christian God and that his messiah was Jesus Christ who he believed founded the Catholic Church. Long story short, after drawing these conclusions he ended up in seminary later in life and is now a priest.

Other than this priest, many people have had experiences that can not be explained by science. It is this, that I believe is the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

I hate to break it to you aipodino but that guy is either lying to you or only spent 15minutes studying physics because that is high school physics and can very easily explain the things described.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I am not the most religious person for sure. I just look around, and ponder how this all has come to pass. It seems to be a Grand design. How did this tiny rock in our Solar system just happen to be where it would create life, never mind sustain it. Too far-fetched to me.

Too far fetched that you needed to invent a supernatural being to magic it all up and it became more believable?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it would have to depend on the claim, the evidence and the impact the the facts vs the evidence actually has. Lets for arguments sake say that it wasn't actually Caesar that crossed and 'lookalike' that crossed the the Rubicon in charge of his armies then technically the statement is false but it doesn't actually matter because the actions that happened because of it, you cannot undo it because you found out something was false. However the scientific method has to look at something to see if it was true in the past because the scientific method is used to make physical predictions of the future.

Naturally. As I've been saying through this thread, though, it's not rational to simply cast up doubts into the air, saying "what if, what if, what if..." The real question, with regard to your hypothetical, is, "Are there any possible reasons for thinking that it might have actually been Caesar's doppleganger ?" Think about it, leading an army on horseback through rough terrain, there would have been plenty of chances for people to look and confirm whether or not it was actually Julius Caesar who was leading them. And yet, nobody ever made any such suggestion. So, again, simply asking, "What if it was his lookalike," represents a departure from rational discourse.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

And the historical method alone cannot show us that Jesus was God.

So why should we say that he was?

See below (above) to what I wrote about concluding that Christianity is True is an Inference to the best explanation. We're asking what is the best explanation for the uncontested historical facts. I recommend you look up some debates/lectures by William Lane Craig for this one; he has written two doctoral theses on the Resurrection, and how historians assess & gauge these historical claims.

flipdewaf wrote:

And honestly not trying to be flippant but have you seen "The life of Bryan" ?

Yeah, a long time ago. I don't really remember it, though, other than something about a neighbor of Jesus..?

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

What more information do you think is needed?

I'm curious to know your thoughts, and please be honest when you answer: Is it possible that Christianity is true ?

Christianity exists, the belief that a supernatural being exists in the form of a deity is the question that needs proof. If there was something that could be shown that a deity could have a repeatable and measurable impact on a property that we can detect and be able to rule out other potential sources of noise that could interfere with the measurements such that we could attribute a level of certainty. In order for one to be able to for a useful set of test someone would have to at least state what 'god' is and what effect would be expected.

Right on. I appreciate your honesty. If you're sincerely looking for the best arguments for the existence of God, I would recommend you look up some debates & lectures online from William Lane Craig, whom I already mentioned, but also John Lennox, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and Peter Kreeft.

If you want to go one deeper get into some more scholarly works on the origin of Christianity I strongly recommend Martin Hengel, particularly his Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Look him up. Also, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, Norm Geisler, and Darrel Bock, Daniel B. Wallace.

flipdewaf wrote:

My biggest hangups? Honestly? Well I don't see why it should be taken any more seriously than any other "claims" and I have ones that will materially impact my life that require much more focus for me because their relevance and likely truth to be dealt with. I see the chance of there being a god as very small, let alone the chance that it is the particular god that you think it is. If by any very very small chance any of the gods do exist and they have a say in whether I go to their heaven or not then I feel comfortable enough in my own morals and take on life that if their opinion is that I should not be let in to their 'heaven' that it is probably not a place I want to go to anyway.

Why does Christianity matter to the non-believer ? C.S. Lewis answered that question nicely, here: http://www.newcityindy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lewis-Weight-of-Glory.pdf

“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” — C. S. Lewis

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Also, if God's existence could be definitively proven, then I don't think that we'd worship God for the right reasons; rather, we'd worship him out of a selfish desire to get into Heaven. As it is now, people are given a chance to know Him, but only if they earnestly and willingly seek Him.

Sounds like a foolish way for a god to set up a system if you ask me. Like a woman who walks around trying to do a heron impression rather than saying "do you like my new haircut?"

Well, there's a problem that arises when you try to argue with God, and it's that he is the source of consciousness and logic, so you've kinda got an uphill battle if you don't agree with how He set things up..

emperortk wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Also, if God's existence could be definitively proven, then I don't think that we'd worship God for the right reasons; rather, we'd worship him out of a selfish desire to get into Heaven.

What are the right reasons?

I think the right reason to worship God is because He is God. It’s not about us, it’s about Him. We should worship Him because, as the author of creation, He rightly deserves it – certainly not because He needs it.



Mm, good words, apodino. What was the First Cause ? The Prime Mover. How could the Laws of Physics, which determined the motion of matter after the Big Bang, have not existed prior to the existence of time & matter ? We have observed a grand effect. Well, do effects occur without causes ? Has the scientific method ever observed as such ? Nay, the scientific method presupposes that effects have causes, and could not operate outside of this assumption; I think that this is what non-theists need to think more deeply about.

Also, Leibnitz: Why does the universe exist at all ?

flipdewaf wrote:

Too far fetched that you needed to invent a supernatural being to magic it all up and it became more believable?

Now now, don’t forget that you admitted that God might exist. Beyond that, I don’t know about WarRI1, but in my case belief in God is not a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument; as I’ve said multiple times now, my rational belief in God is a deductive inference from the cosmological evidence that the universe had a beginning, philosophical reflection upon eternity, something from nothing, and cause & effect, as well as the historical evidence for Jesus’ being whom He claimed to be.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it would have to depend on the claim, the evidence and the impact the the facts vs the evidence actually has. Lets for arguments sake say that it wasn't actually Caesar that crossed and 'lookalike' that crossed the the Rubicon in charge of his armies then technically the statement is false but it doesn't actually matter because the actions that happened because of it, you cannot undo it because you found out something was false. However the scientific method has to look at something to see if it was true in the past because the scientific method is used to make physical predictions of the future.

Naturally. As I've been saying through this thread, though, it's not rational to simply cast up doubts into the air, saying "what if, what if, what if..." The real question, with regard to your hypothetical, is, "Are there any possible reasons for thinking that it might have actually been Caesar's doppleganger ?" Think about it, leading an army on horseback through rough terrain, there would have been plenty of chances for people to look and confirm whether or not it was actually Julius Caesar who was leading them. And yet, nobody ever made any such suggestion. So, again, simply asking, "What if it was his lookalike," represents a departure from rational discourse.

It also doesn't matter because history swung on it being true and the actions what was at least thought to be true. If it could be proved that god doesn't exist then cathedrals would not dissapear.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

And the historical method alone cannot show us that Jesus was God.

So why should we say that he was?

See below (above) to what I wrote about concluding that Christianity is True is an Inference to the best explanation. We're asking what is the best explanation for the uncontested historical facts. I recommend you look up some debates/lectures by William Lane Craig for this one; he has written two doctoral theses on the Resurrection, and how historians assess & gauge these historical claims.

If something goes against the laws of nature then we need more evidence than "because someone said that's what happened". For me it is no different than the Kraken. Fine tales and potentially useful for teaching of fables but nothing more.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

And honestly not trying to be flippant but have you seen "The life of Bryan" ?

Yeah, a long time ago. I don't really remember it, though, other than something about a neighbor of Jesus..?

Well you should, it's not only funny but maybe will give you a bit of insight.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

What more information do you think is needed?

I'm curious to know your thoughts, and please be honest when you answer: Is it possible that Christianity is true ?

Christianity exists, the belief that a supernatural being exists in the form of a deity is the question that needs proof. If there was something that could be shown that a deity could have a repeatable and measurable impact on a property that we can detect and be able to rule out other potential sources of noise that could interfere with the measurements such that we could attribute a level of certainty. In order for one to be able to for a useful set of test someone would have to at least state what 'god' is and what effect would be expected.

Right on. I appreciate your honesty. If you're sincerely looking for the best arguments for the existence of God, I would recommend you look up some debates & lectures online from William Lane Craig, whom I already mentioned, but also John Lennox, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and Peter Kreeft.

If you want to go one deeper get into some more scholarly works on the origin of Christianity I strongly recommend Martin Hengel, particularly his Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Look him up. Also, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, Norm Geisler, and Darrel Bock, Daniel B. Wallace.

I'm not really that interested in looking for the best arguments for the existence of god, there are more important and fruitful things than searching for what isn't there, every day one has to make an assessment of what is important and where we should spend our limited time on this planet. I'd rather spend it being of use to the world and society. I value the search for a god in the same way I value a search for the fairies at the bottom of my garden, it just so happens that there are more people saying there is a god than there are fairies the the discussions are more frequent. You Know where I'm from the story is that the fairies peel peas (the pea peelers) during the night in the summer and that if you go to try and see them (at fairy cross plain) they will run away and ruin the crops. There stories about as to what has happened to people who have tried to see them and many folk still will not go there in the mid summer. It's a great story and people still believe it and I love local folk lore but for me there is no difference between that and the Jesus story.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

My biggest hangups? Honestly? Well I don't see why it should be taken any more seriously than any other "claims" and I have ones that will materially impact my life that require much more focus for me because their relevance and likely truth to be dealt with. I see the chance of there being a god as very small, let alone the chance that it is the particular god that you think it is. If by any very very small chance any of the gods do exist and they have a say in whether I go to their heaven or not then I feel comfortable enough in my own morals and take on life that if their opinion is that I should not be let in to their 'heaven' that it is probably not a place I want to go to anyway.

Why does Christianity matter to the non-believer ? C.S. Lewis answered that question nicely, here: http://www.newcityindy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lewis-Weight-of-Glory.pdf

“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” — C. S. Lewis

It is only not important if you take the selfish view,
Christianity matters to the non believer (I can only talk for myself here) because so much of the worlds resources (time, money, energy) that if we were to concentrate those on things that actually made a difference and had an effect on the world we actually live in then the world could be a better place.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Also, if God's existence could be definitively proven, then I don't think that we'd worship God for the right reasons; rather, we'd worship him out of a selfish desire to get into Heaven. As it is now, people are given a chance to know Him, but only if they earnestly and willingly seek Him.

Sounds like a foolish way for a god to set up a system if you ask me. Like a woman who walks around trying to do a heron impression rather than saying "do you like my new haircut?"

Well, there's a problem that arises when you try to argue with God, and it's that he is the source of consciousness and logic, so you've kinda got an uphill battle if you don't agree with how He set things up..

How do you know he is the source of conciseness and logic?

dik909 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Also, if God's existence could be definitively proven, then I don't think that we'd worship God for the right reasons; rather, we'd worship him out of a selfish desire to get into Heaven.

What are the right reasons?

I think the right reason to worship God is because He is God. It’s not about us, it’s about Him. We should worship Him because, as the author of creation, He rightly deserves it – certainly not because He needs it.

Dave is Dave, should we worship Dave? that's a poor argument.

dik909 wrote:

Mm, good words, apodino. What was the First Cause ? The Prime Mover. How could the Laws of Physics, which determined the motion of matter after the Big Bang, have not existed prior to the existence of time & matter ? We have observed a grand effect. Well, do effects occur without causes ? Has the scientific method ever observed as such ? Nay, the scientific method presupposes that effects have causes, and could not operate outside of this assumption; I think that this is what non-theists need to think more deeply about.

Also, Leibnitz: Why does the universe exist at all ?

Well before the beginning of time? it's a weird statement in and of itself, we have a fair Idea that the methods that we use to determine how the universe breakdown at the planck time after the big bang, we don't even know time was the same, maybe it went backwards or sideways but we don't know, and maybe we never will.

Cause and effect? I cannot answer that question but to all useful effect it has within the reality that we live in it has a pretty good show that it is important but like I said before the planck time its very difficult to determine because of the direction in which time may (or may not) move.

As to Leibnitz, "why does the universe exist at all?" it's bold assertion there is that there needs to be a "why"
The answer to all this is "we don't know" and like I previously said to insert god in to any of this would be a god of the gaps but then as we see below you wouldn't do that.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Too far fetched that you needed to invent a supernatural being to magic it all up and it became more believable?

Now now, don’t forget that you admitted that God might exist. Beyond that, I don’t know about WarRI1, but in my case belief in God is not a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument; as I’ve said multiple times now, my rational belief in God is a deductive inference from the cosmological evidence that the universe had a beginning,

You have evidence that the universe had a beginning? Please show, Would you be willing to share your Nobel prize money with me?

dik909 wrote:

philosophical reflection upon eternity, something from nothing, and cause & effect,

Again, show evidence

dik909 wrote:

as well as the historical evidence for Jesus’ being whom He claimed to be.

This is the only piece you have shown any evidence for an not even that he was who he was shown to be, you have shown evidence for a guy existing who people thought he performed miracles and not evidence that these were actually supernatural acts and not merely tricks. Could Jesus have been a magician?

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not really that interested in looking for the best arguments for the existence of god, there are more important and fruitful things than searching for what isn't there...

Alrighty then, I think we're done..

Best of luck to you.

apodino wrote:

Both laws are accepted by anyone who even half understands physics. So the question he asked is, what started the earth in Motion? If there was an equal and opposite reaction that set the earth in motion, where is the object or force that reacted when the earth went into motion? He saw a number of things in the universe and wondered the same thing. He came to the conclusion that the only logical answer was that there was something supernatural involved (God). Now having been convinced of God's existence by science of all things, which God is the actual one that existed? He concluded it was the Christian God and that his messiah was Jesus Christ who he believed founded the Catholic Church. Long story short, after drawing these conclusions he ended up in seminary later in life and is now a priest.

Other than this priest, many people have had experiences that can not be explained by science. It is this, that I believe is the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

That's it???
Sounds like guy had zero interest in understanding of the this Solar System, let alone the Milky Way Galaxy (not to mention the Universe)...I think this 'priest' was masking his truth past of being a boy scout master instead of someone having anything to do with physics.

Did he have any idea what a Star Nursery was???
Planets are birth by Star dust or remnants from a supernova.
But before that, Stars are formed by gaseous interchanges.

If there was an equal and opposite reaction that set the earth in motion, where is the object or force that reacted when the earth went into motion?
The Earth was 'the Earth in motion' at it's birth. It was in pieces. Jupiter, not so much, it's mostly light gases, Hydrogen like out Sun.
*side note- Jupiter spins at 29,000 mph vs tiny Earth 1000mph / Earth needs 24 hours to complete a rotation, Big Jupiter (can contain 1300 Earths) just 9 hours - that's motion!

It keeps going and going...

If you explode a grenade out in the desert - it's ball bearings or dangerous fragments will penetrate/shatter almost anything within striking distance.
With nothing around to absorb the exploding pieces flying in every imaginable direction - BUT in no time at all atmospheric pressure & gravity will take hold and they start encountering resistance and ultimately fall to the ground at some point. Those propelled by the greatest inertia will go farther than those with less. Think of it like a sneeze, your initial germs (spittle) will fly farther away than the last few (you've seen the images from high-speed photography. Same image).

Now explode that grenade on the moon and with zero atmosphere (aka No resistance whatsoever) and zero/minimal gravity...
those exploding particles are zip out on a trajectory and keep going 'once in motion, stays in motion' until interrupted by another body/force.

The star nursery that birth our Sun (and others most likely) also ejected the necessary particles/matter at astonishing speeds creating Mercury, Venus, US, and so on.
Our sun comprises of 99% of the matter in our entire Solar System...us planets, asteroid belt, Oort Cloud and moons comprise of the other 1%.

Our early sun was shrouded in clouds of gas & dust particles (minerals/matter) swirling around in their respective trajectories. Certain particles coalesce easier than others, the dominant pieces control the spin (the direction/speed) of the clumping masses. With the Sun as massive as it is, it's not hard to picture billions of crumbs ...(remnant star matter) swirling about, colliding creating a snowball effect. In the bigger picture, as the ball/body continues it's rotation speed it's orbital speed continues - there's nothing to stop it. Everything continues in motion. It's all about the spin.

He saw a number of things in the universe and wondered the same thing,

Like what? That's pretty vague.

Now having been convinced of God's existence by science of all things, which God is the actual one that existed? He concluded it was the Christian God and that his messiah was Jesus Christ who he believed founded the Catholic Church

He was clearly never sincere about cosmology...about as insincere as some posting here.

after drawing these conclusions he ended up in seminary later in life and is now a priest

..it's because his track record at Boy Scouts, the Church is the next best place for obedient boys.

All Joking aside, if what you say is true about his reaching his decision and why - his science story is just so thin it sounds as if it came straight from the 1950s at best.

Other than this priest, many people have had experiences that can not be explained by science. It is this, that I believe is the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.[/quote]

Agree on that, I heard people I've known tell of strange occurrences that cannot be explained - but I wasn't there and I've learned alot people are not forthcoming in actual retelling of these 'weird' events. But then again...they are 'human'...which all those 'traits' - good and bad.


BN747

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not really that interested in looking for the best arguments for the existence of god, there are more important and fruitful things than searching for what isn't there...

Alrighty then, I think we're done..

Best of luck to you.

Wait! Luck?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

I am not the most religious person for sure. I just look around, and ponder how this all has come to pass. It seems to be a Grand design. How did this tiny rock in our Solar system just happen to be where it would create life, never mind sustain it. Too far-fetched to me.

Too far fetched that you needed to invent a supernatural being to magic it all up and it became more believable?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not invent anyone, it seems that was done by many other beings on this planet many, may years before me and in many forms also. It seems that you guys are pushing a theory with out any proof what so ever. Science? Who was the first scientist? Where did the intelligence come from to be a Scientist? Out of the ocean? Where did the ocean come from, and on and on and on. Show me proof that there is no Grand Design. Men and women a lot smarter than we are have no answer, and there never will be one until??????

WarRI1 wrote:

It seems that you guys are pushing a theory with out any proof what so ever.

Well you don't believe anything I written...and you should not. Because Science lets you discover for yourself Isome math skills required)

WarRI1 wrote:

Science? Who was the first scientist?

A toss up, between the man or woman who invented the Wheel.... OR the guy or woman who decided to cook meat.

We will never know that because... most likely no written language had yet to be invented.

WarRI1 wrote:

Where did the intelligence come from to be a Scientist?

Building blocks step by step,
Someone sat ,sat and sat and watched the sun come up and go down and figured out the seasons for planting crops
To someone creating Stonehenge and a sun dial (probably cultures across the globe did this That person also erroneously decided the Earth was the center of everything.
We learn, learn and learn more.

WarRI1 wrote:

Out of the ocean?

Put on a pot of water, fill it with rice (more rice than water) crank the heat and put a lid on it.

WarRI1 wrote:

Where did the ocean come from, and on and on and on.

As the pot/contents are heated...steam builds
(That's the primordial soup that is Earth) that steam (clouds) is sealed in by the atmosphere/ozone and falls back to the Earth cooling it.
We have Ocean (plus with hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe...water was ready t be made,

WarRI1 wrote:

Show me proof that there is no Grand Design. Men and women a lot smarter than we are have no answer, and there never will be one until??????

If you choose not listen to anyone but your priest..then that's a perfect safe zone for you.

If not, may I suggest a visit to the youtube site 'Crash Course', they make everything from Butt-itch to Greek Mythology to psychology to Black Holes ..easy to follow and entertaining while teaching you.

Caution: Proceed only if your mind is in working order.


BN747

WarRI1 wrote:

Show me proof that there is no Grand Design.

As a general concept, it's pretty difficult to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, I cannot prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, but I can point to heaps of surveys, searches and analysis, the lack of verifiable observations, the lack of physical evidence like fossils or bones, etc. and reach the perfectly reasonable conclusion that, in all probability, Nessie doesn't exist.

As for your other questions, science has pretty good answers for all of those. Science and intelligence derive from primitive man observing things, trying things and then asking questions - What makes that happen?

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not really that interested in looking for the best arguments for the existence of god, there are more important and fruitful things than searching for what isn't there...

Alrighty then, I think we're done..

Best of luck to you.

I think you misinterpreted what I mean, I'm looking for the best arguments for what is true (god or otherwise), if god has no good arguments for his existence being true and how to predict the future then it is worthless evidence, science has the ability to predict the future to a certain degree, the future predicting ability of history is not dependent on it's truth. therefore science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth. You can talk about your ridiculous bible scholars all you want but it isn't reliable evidence, it might be interesting but truth isn't something to take from the diatribe you have posted.

In essence the study of historical sources is not a reliable way to determine truth, science demonstrably is. You want the best possible guess at looking at historical events then use history, you want to know truth use science. If you make an extraordinary claim you need extraordinary evidence, I know you think that's a dogma all intself but look at how the enlightened world is working using that particular set of methods and techniques where we set up a scientific system, it works! Planes fly, cars drive, mediciines work. Look at the parts of the world where the word of the dogmatic scripture rules and I'll show the the scrubs of the middle east.

SCIENCE FUCKING WORKS!
GOD = NO EVIDENCE IN SCIENCE!
God effects the world we live in then show the effects
If you cant show the effects then he to all intents and purposes isnt the world we live in.

I'm going to base my life in the system that works, not the one that I have to assume facts to make a logic puzzle that made a book purportedly from the most powerful being that ever existed but needs you to worship him and follow his rules or you'll burn in the fires of hell.

My system works in the world I live in (the real one) yours might work in you own special world.

Fred

scbriml wrote:

As a general concept, it's pretty difficult to prove that something doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. It is extremely easy to prove a negative, and we do it all the time; we can prove that there are no Zen Buddhists in the United States Senate, for example, or that there are no living Tyrannosaurus Rex in in downtown Los Angeles. This oft-repeated statement, "You can't prove a negative," is only heard on a popular atheistic level, but is not a statement which sophisticated atheist philosophers ever make.

WarRI1 wrote:

I did not invent anyone, it seems that was done by many other beings on this planet many, may years before me and in many forms also. It seems that you guys are pushing a theory with out any proof what so ever. Science? Who was the first scientist? Where did the intelligence come from to be a Scientist? Out of the ocean? Where did the ocean come from, and on and on and on. Show me proof that there is no Grand Design. Men and women a lot smarter than we are have no answer, and there never will be one until??????

Too sum up my penultimate post in case the message isn't clear.

If you believe that the cave man existed...then you believe in science and not any religious scribbles, why?

Because before there was this 'organized religion...man had already harnessed the most basic principles of science with the aim of making his life simpler and more manageable,
His early feats of developing and using natures resources to develop tools to hunt, build shelter, prepare and feed himself, the wheel made transporting heavy objects over distance.
Pulleys, rope and applied understood scientific techniques to build temples, monuments, pyramids, etc.
They used the forces of wind to propel their boats.

Science never started the Science vs Religion battle.

Religion did.

As it saw a threat to it's order, Religion reacted exactly as man does when he is threatened - warn, punish, harm ..up to death if necessary! Anything to stop the mind from pursuing any additional knowledge of matters beyond their understanding. From that point on...science took on a bad rap but welcomed the challenge nonetheless and is now at a point of rocketing away from ignorance by the second.

Religion has nowhere else to turn bu repeating the same tired old dogmas like hamster in wheel.
vs
Science has the entire universe in front of to seek more than the mind can withstand...but it is indeed a worthy pursuit.

It's a learn OR don't learn matter now, and ye ol' faithful ...is left in the dust Except in the minds that find comfort in surrendering their brain capacities in exchange 'feeling good'.
Science is far from about 'feeling good', it's about pursuing real truth no matter where it leads.

BN747

dik909 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

As a general concept, it's pretty difficult to prove that something doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. It is extremely easy to prove a negative, and we do it all the time; we can prove that there are no Zen Buddhists in the United States Senate, for example, or that there are no living Tyrannosaurus Rex in in downtown Los Angeles. This oft-repeated statement, "You can't prove a negative," is only heard on a popular atheistic level, but is not a statement which sophisticated atheist philosophers ever make.

Oh can you prove that there is no T-Rex in downtown Los-Angeles indeed, it is invisible, in 1994 it got angry because of some gays and caused an earthquake by doing star jumps. And there are 6 Zen-Buddhists in the united states senate, I know because they told me but they keep it a secret and they will only tell you that they are if you truly believe they are. You wont know which because you have to do it by faith.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not really that interested in looking for the best arguments for the existence of god, there are more important and fruitful things than searching for what isn't there...

You've betrayed yourself by revealing your philosophical presuppositions; you first assume that God doesn't exist, rather than suspending judgment and allowing for the possibility that He might exist.

flipdewaf wrote:

science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth.

Please demonstrate that scientifically.

No disrespect, but you seem to be blissfully ignorant of your philosophical presuppositions. The statement, "science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth," is a philosophical claim which cannot itself be demonstrated scientifically. This is seriously Philosophy of Science 101.

flipdewaf wrote:

...your ridiculous bible scholars all you want...

Your incredulity is on full display. If you were really as objective and rational as you feign to be, you wouldn't be so emotional and rude/insulting.

This is why I respectfully bowed out. I mean, what sense does it make to go back-and-forth with someone who is clearly unable/unwilling to reflect on their own biases, let alone suspend them ? Clearly, none.

Science doesn't work - it provides amazing insight into the nature of the universe, it enables useful technology, but the world faces catastrophic climate changes, violent warfare, over population all of which put civilization in peril. Science cannot help us establish values which will allow continuation of our civilization, it only helps hasten destruction. (ps - I have been a fan of science for scores of years), but it is helpless in the face of human nature.

I am thinking of re-reading Nietzsche. Contrary to popular opinion he was not a Nazi at all - his sister was, and she edited and rewrote some of his unpublished works. His pessimism about the future of our civilization is warranted. Small minds invest much sound and fury about whether god exists - one of the least interesting topics in understanding human civilization. More interesting is understanding how civilizations have attempted to establish and enforce values.

Even more interesting is just how humans can be rational, by nature they are not. Emotions, tribal loyalties, selfishness are assumed and may be the real values. But sometimes, and some people rise above that. But what is 'rise' and in what sense can that be said to be better than our bloody evolutionary nature.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not really that interested in looking for the best arguments for the existence of god, there are more important and fruitful things than searching for what isn't there...

You've betrayed yourself by revealing your philosophical presuppositions; you first assume that God doesn't exist, rather than suspending judgment and allowing for the possibility that He might exist.

I would assume anything I have no evidence for doesn’t exist, my brain doesn’t have the capacity to encompass all possibilities, I have to accept those which first seem reasonable. If anything what happened was that my point was mistaken through inadvertent miscommunication which quite aptly shows the fallibility of humans to misinterpret texts. Oh well.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth.

Please demonstrate that scientifically.

well as the function of science is to derive better understanding of the natural world through repeatable and demonstrable evidence then one would only have to look at the increases in technology that we see, the increases that have remarkably taken place since the renaissance. You are on an aviation website, this should be obvious to all but the most ignorant amongst us.

dik909 wrote:

No disrespect, but you seem to be blissfully ignorant of your philosophical presuppositions. The statement, "science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth," is a philosophical claim which cannot itself be demonstrated scientifically. This is seriously Philosophy of Science 101.

but science works in the world I live in, do you live in a different world?

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

...your ridiculous bible scholars all you want...

Your incredulity is on full display. If you were really as objective and rational as you feign to be, you wouldn't be so emotional and rude/insulting.

you have said that what one person wrote about god in a book is true but you have made no mention of the other gods mentioned in other books, are they all true? You are intellectually inconsistent.

dik909 wrote:

This is why I respectfully bowed out. I mean, what sense does it make to go back-and-forth with someone who is clearly unable/unwilling to reflect on their own biases, let alone suspend them ? Clearly, none.

I’m willing to to suspend and change my beliefs based on sound evidence. Produce it.

And no, you cannot say you are bowing out respectfully and believe it to be true after you likened me to a Nazi.

What is your god? You’ve avoided that question several times already, it might go some way to actually being able to have a discussion if you could give some sort of clue as to what you think god is.


Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

You can talk about your ridiculous bible scholars all you want but it isn't reliable evidence, it might be interesting but truth isn't something to take from the diatribe you have posted.

I recommend taking the time to read Peter Kreeft's 20 Arguments for God's Existence. They're absolutely hilariously bad. Facepalm protection recommended.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... stence.htm

Pi7472000 wrote:

Science, research and facts have proven there is no God.

Can you please cite the published science, research, and facts that support your hypothesis?

WarRI1 wrote:

it seems that was done by many other beings on this planet

scbriml wrote:

As a general concept, it's pretty difficult to prove that something doesn't exist.

I think you have together answered the thread question perfectly....

Tugg

I don't think that science and God are exclusive of one another. Most people accept evolution as a fact. Physics, from the very small (sub-atomic particles) to the very large (galaxies) explains the universe pretty well with some exceptions. But neither of these precludes a "God" or creator. Any being intelligent enough to create the universe would certainly be intelligent enough to conceive the concepts of evolution and physics to make things work.
The building blocks of life seem to be pretty common in the cosmos, I think only the most hardcore religious fanatics would flat-out say we are the only inhabited planet in the universe. But again, even believers would have to think God wouldn't just seed this one tiny planet in the vastness of all of space. In the movie Contact, Jody Foster's character asks her Dad if he thinks there's life elsewhere as she looks into the night sky. His answer was perfect - " it sure seems like a big waste of space if there isn't."
As for science having "dis-proven" God's existence, I can't see how. While many times experiments have been run trying to re-create the conditions of early Earth, no one has ever been able to get all those organic molecules to self-replicate and start what we'd consider life. Until someone can show what sparked life into existence or can make it happen via one of these types of experiments, the concept of a creator cannot be entirely ruled out.

apodino wrote:

Other than this priest, many people have had experiences that can not be explained by science. It is this, that I believe is the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

Can't be explained by science YET. All through out human history things that could not be explained by the science of the time was chalked up to a higher being.

flipdewaf wrote:

I would assume anything I have no evidence for doesn’t exist, my brain doesn’t have the capacity to encompass all possibilities, I have to accept those which first seem reasonable. If anything what happened was that my point was mistaken through inadvertent miscommunication which quite aptly shows the fallibility of humans to misinterpret texts. Oh well.

I have offered you multiple philosophical arguments for God (Cosmological, Ontological, Teleological Moral), each of which you have wantonly dismissed without any deep, sincere study.

I have tried to explain to you the philosophical nature of 'evidence' but you again insolently rejected even the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and went so far as to imply that the curators of the ODP aren't as smart as you based upon their definition of 'evidence.'

What you call "inadvertent miscommunication" I call a simple Freudian slip, which, I must say, is perfectly consistent with the rhetoric and "arguments" you've advanced thus far.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth.

Please demonstrate that scientifically.

well as the function of science is to derive better understanding of the natural world through repeatable and demonstrable evidence then one would only have to look at the increases in technology that we see, the increases that have remarkably taken place since the renaissance. You are on an aviation website, this should be obvious to all but the most ignorant amongst us.

I asked you to scientifically demonstrate that science is a better/more reliable way of determining truth, to which you responded with an explanation of what the function of science is. I mean, seriously ? Do you honestly expect anyone to not see through your paper-thin façade ?? Forgive me for saying this, and I mean nothing offensive/personal by it, truly, but it's abundantly clear that you have zero philosophical training, and are too proud to admit it. Philosophy, it has been said, is the mother of all sciences; that is, all physical sciences operate upon immaterial, untestable, philosophical assumptions. This is what I was alluding to when I asked you to, "demonstrate that scientifically."

Again: the statement that, "science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth," is a philosophical claim which cannot itself be scientifically verified. You came to your conclusion via inferrence. This is exactly how philosophers & theologians come to knowledge of God, deductive inference, based upon arguments and [a sober examination of what] evidence [is].

(Do I expect you to ask sincere, seeking questions about what I've just written ? Surely not, but one can hope.)

flipdewaf wrote:

but science works in the world I live in, do you live in a different world?

Yes but WHY does science work ? This is what you aren't thinking about. Your statement that, "science works," assumes so many things, i.e.: the uniformity of nature, cause & effect, the constancy of physical laws, the scientific method itself, truth/honesty in reporting, and even the reliability of your own mind ! None of these things can be scientifically verified, yet you unquestioningly take for granted, despite feigning such love for "science."

(I swear, NdGT fanboys who unreflectively screech, "Science ! Science ! Science !," are basically just non-reflective NPCs. If you were truly scientifically-minded, you would apply some skepticism to your "skepticism.")

flipdewaf wrote:

you have said that what one person wrote about god in a book is true but you have made no mention of the other gods mentioned in other books, are they all true?

I do not operate in such an assumptive, sweeping way as you do. If you give me specific examples, we can assess those on a case-by-case basis.

That said, the first law of classical logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, is particularly relevant to assessing differing truth claims. Please look into it..

flipdewaf wrote:

You are intellectually inconsistent.

That's actually quite amusing coming from you..

flipdewaf wrote:

And no, you cannot say you are bowing out respectfully and believe it to be true after you likened me to a Nazi.

The fact that you think I likened you to a Nazi is strong evidence that your reading comprehension skills are not quite up to par, and thus undermines literally every claim you've made on this thread, (starting with your assertion that the New Testament was first written in Arabic). Please, re-read what I wrote a few times, and ask yourself if I really likened you, a stranger, to a Nazi:

"What you're regurgitating is actually long-debunked German "theology" from the late 19th century which didn't want a Jewish Jesus (the same sentiment which later led to German anti-Semitism) - they wanted an Arian Jesus - so they tried to explain the resurrection narrative against earlier pagan myths."

Did I in any way imply that you were a Nazi ? No.
Did I explain the origin of the long-debunked claims you were regurgitating? Yes.
Were those claims developed by German anti-Semites who didn't want a Jewish Jesus ? Yes.
Does it follow from that that you are a Nazi ? No.
Again, did I liken you to a Nazi ? Again, no.

flipdewaf wrote:

What is your god? You’ve avoided that question several times already, it might go some way to actually being able to have a discussion if you could give some sort of clue as to what you think god is.

1. You have not asked me that question several times already
2. One of my first replies on this thread was to another person, wherein I explicitly gave my definition of God, which is the definition offered by recent Templeton Prize winner Alvin Plantinga: God = maximally supreme being.
3. I do not think that offering my definition of God will do anything towards our actually being able to have a discussion, so long as you're unwilling to admit that you have zero philosophical training, and continue to pretend that you know what you're talking about.

ER757 wrote:

While many times experiments have been run trying to re-create the conditions of early Earth, no one has ever been able to get all those organic molecules to self-replicate and start what we'd consider life. Until someone can show what sparked life into existence or can make it happen via one of these types of experiments, the concept of a creator cannot be entirely ruled out.

Mm, well said. And that's just if we limit ourselves to a "natural" origin ! Doesn't even account for the cause of the Big Bang.

Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I would assume anything I have no evidence for doesn’t exist, my brain doesn’t have the capacity to encompass all possibilities, I have to accept those which first seem reasonable. If anything what happened was that my point was mistaken through inadvertent miscommunication which quite aptly shows the fallibility of humans to misinterpret texts. Oh well.

I have offered you multiple philosophical arguments for God (Cosmological, Ontological, Teleological Moral), each of which you have wantonly dismissed without any deep, sincere study.

What makes you so sure philosophy is correct?

dik909 wrote:

I have tried to explain to you the philosophical nature of 'evidence' but you again insolently rejected even the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and went so far as to imply that the curators of the ODP aren't as smart as you based upon their definition of 'evidence.'

No, you are right, im pretty confident that my version of evidence works, seems to work for all the people I work with and all those discovering new things about the world. Meh.

dik909 wrote:

What you call "inadvertent miscommunication" I call a simple Freudian slip, which, I must say, is perfectly consistent with the rhetoric and "arguments" you've advanced thus far.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Please demonstrate that scientifically.

well as the function of science is to derive better understanding of the natural world through repeatable and demonstrable evidence then one would only have to look at the increases in technology that we see, the increases that have remarkably taken place since the renaissance. You are on an aviation website, this should be obvious to all but the most ignorant amongst us.

I asked you to scientifically demonstrate that science is a better/more reliable way of determining truth, to which you responded with an explanation of what the function of science is. I mean, seriously ? Do you honestly expect anyone to not see through your paper-thin façade ?? Forgive me for saying this, and I mean nothing offensive/personal by it,

That phrase has connotations of "I'm not a racist but...offence cant be given, only taken in my book"

dik909 wrote:

truly, but it's abundantly clear that you have zero philosophical training, and are too proud to admit it.

I haven't had any, Where have I said that I have?

dik909 wrote:

Philosophy, it has been said, is the mother of all sciences; that is, all physical sciences operate upon immaterial, untestable, philosophical assumptions.

I'm sure a lot of things have been said, you seem to view philosphy as the be all and end all.

dik909 wrote:

This is what I was alluding to when I asked you to, "demonstrate that scientifically."

Can you demonstrate that philosophy s the right way to get to anything philosphically? The only subject matter that can use itself as justification is maths

dik909 wrote:

Again: the statement that, "science is a better and more reliable way of determining truth," is a philosophical claim which cannot itself be scientifically verified. You came to your conclusion via inferrence. This is exactly how philosophers & theologians come to knowledge of God, deductive inference, based upon arguments and [a sober examination of what] evidence [is].

(Do I expect you to ask sincere, seeking questions about what I've just written ? Surely not, but one can hope.)

So how do prove history historically? this appears how you seem to be finding where god lay, and what is different about that and the other gods in history

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

but science works in the world I live in, do you live in a different world?

Yes but WHY does science work ? This is what you aren't thinking about. Your statement that, "science works," assumes so many things, i.e.: the uniformity of nature, cause & effect, the constancy of physical laws, the scientific method itself, truth/honesty in reporting, and even the reliability of your own mind ! None of these things can be scientifically verified, yet you unquestioningly take for granted, despite feigning such love for "science."

Because it works, are you denying that we have made progress through the use of the scientific method?

dik909 wrote:

(I swear, NdGT fanboys who unreflectively screech, "Science ! Science ! Science !," are basically just non-reflective NPCs. If you were truly scientifically-minded, you would apply some skepticism to your "skepticism.")

I don't know what those acronyms mean, do you mean should I be skeptical about being skeptical?

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

you have said that what one person wrote about god in a book is true but you have made no mention of the other gods mentioned in other books, are they all true?

I do not operate in such an assumptive, sweeping way as you do. If you give me specific examples, we can assess those on a case-by-case basis.

That said, the first law of classical logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, is particularly relevant to assessing differing truth claims. Please look into it..

That makes sense, however the invisible T-Rex is both invisible and visible. Therefore that isn't correct.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

You are intellectually inconsistent.

That's actually quite amusing coming from you..

flipdewaf wrote:

And no, you cannot say you are bowing out respectfully and believe it to be true after you likened me to a Nazi.

The fact that you think I likened you to a Nazi is strong evidence that your reading comprehension skills are not quite up to par, and thus undermines literally every claim you've made on this thread, (starting with your assertion that the New Testament was first written in Arabic). Please, re-read what I wrote a few times, and ask yourself if I really likened you, a stranger, to a Nazi:

"What you're regurgitating is actually long-debunked German "theology" from the late 19th century which didn't want a Jewish Jesus (the same sentiment which later led to German anti-Semitism) - they wanted an Arian Jesus - so they tried to explain the resurrection narrative against earlier pagan myths."

Did I in any way imply that you were a Nazi ? No.
Did I explain the origin of the long-debunked claims you were regurgitating? Yes.
Were those claims developed by German anti-Semites who didn't want a Jewish Jesus ? Yes.
Does it follow from that that you are a Nazi ? No.
Again, did I liken you to a Nazi ? Again, no.

You are correct, what you said was I am like the people who led to the rise of Nazism in Germany, If you used science you might find a way to dig faster

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What is your god? You’ve avoided that question several times already, it might go some way to actually being able to have a discussion if you could give some sort of clue as to what you think god is.

1. You have not asked me that question several times already

I have asked at least twice previously, unless you want to derive a philosophical argument for how people count?

dik909 wrote:

2. One of my first replies on this thread was to another person, wherein I explicitly gave my definition of God, which is the definition offered by recent Templeton Prize winner Alvin Plantinga: God = maximally supreme being.

Maximally Supreme being?
I think I know the first word
Supreme = Most authority, highest rank? (I assume you don't think god is a mushroomy creamy sauce) That is something bestowed upon somebody not something inherent. Who gives god that authority?
Being = To have existence or essense

dik909 wrote:

3. I do not think that offering my definition of God will do anything towards our actually being able to have a discussion, so long as you're unwilling to admit that you have zero philosophical training, and continue to pretend that you know what you're talking about.

I think after reading what you are saying that you would only accept that someone is a genuine christian if they have a level of philosophical training that you purport to have and have studied to that level, yet you haven't asked anyone on this thread who have said they believe those questions, if someone tells you they are a believer then what do you ask them? Can't tell if its cod haddock or bovine excrement I can smell.

Its funny because you keep saying you are not carrying on talk and yet you come crawling back.

Chat tomorrow!

Fred

ER757 wrote:

I don't think that science and God are exclusive of one another. Most people accept evolution as a fact. Physics, from the very small (sub-atomic particles) to the very large (galaxies) explains the universe pretty well with some exceptions. But neither of these precludes a "God" or creator. Any being intelligent enough to create the universe would certainly be intelligent enough to conceive the concepts of evolution and physics to make things work.

That makes some sense.

ER757 wrote:

The building blocks of life seem to be pretty common in the cosmos, I think only the most hardcore religious fanatics would flat-out say we are the only inhabited planet in the universe. But again, even believers would have to think God wouldn't just seed this one tiny planet in the vastness of all of space. In the movie Contact, Jody Foster's character asks her Dad if he thinks there's life elsewhere as she looks into the night sky. His answer was perfect - " it sure seems like a big waste of space if there isn't."

That's a good quote, I thought god put points of light in the sky and that's what stars were, so only a waste of space up until the end of the sky.[

quote="ER757"]
As for science having "dis-proven" God's existence, I can't see how.[/quote]Nor the flying spaghetti monster, why should one live ones life as if either exists (save of course for being persecuted for not believing someone elses religion

ER757 wrote:

While many times experiments have been run trying to re-create the conditions of early Earth, no one has ever been able to get all those organic molecules to self-replicate and start what we'd consider life.

I did some studying of the Urey Miller experiment whilst at university very interesting stuff and subsequent studies have shown that there was the possibility of all 20 amino acids required for life but like you say, synthesised life did not come from it.

ER757 wrote:

Until someone can show what sparked life into existence or can make it happen via one of these types of experiments, the concept of a creator cannot be entirely ruled out.

Nor can it be ruled in. I would say the best course of action in scenarios where we don't know is to admit we don't know, some people like to make it up that they do know.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

What makes you so sure philosophy is correct?

Congratulations ! You have just displayed the first hint of critical thought !! The answer to your question is:

http://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884

flipdewaf wrote:

I haven't had any [philosophical training], Where have I said that I have?

I never intimated that you did; you never needed to; your words are evidence enough. Interesting how I was able to correctly infer that from just your public words, huh ?

flipdewaf wrote:

...you seem to view philosphy as the be all and end all.

In terms of apprehending and analyzing truth claims, yes.

Newsflash: the 'Ph' in every PhD stands for Philosophy. This is because at the upper levels of education, it is acknowledged that philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge, even hard sciences.

flipdewaf wrote:

The only subject matter that can use itself as justification is maths

And yet, numbers and mathematics are immaterial abstract objects which cannot be empirically verified. Yet again, you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance of how philosophy undergirds all knowledge.

flipdewaf wrote:

So how do prove history historically?

Well, no lettered historian would use the word 'prove' when talking about history. History is about ascertaining levels of probability. I have already written on the importance of distinguishing between the scientific versus historical methods when examining historical claims, but you pretended to already know everything about it. Now, you ask how historians prove history ? Color me shocked.

Here, this Wikipedia article can give you a brief overiew of Historical Methods, and has some resources/links for you to follow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

flipdewaf wrote:

...this appears how you seem to be finding where god lay, and what is different about that and the other gods in history

1. If you think I've inferred that God exists based solely on historical methods, then you are again displaying your lack of reading comprehension skills; in my last post I stated quite clearly towards the beginning the way(s) in which I concluded that God exists. Please see above.
2. Name another "god" and what reason(s) there are for think that they might be the One True God.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

but science works in the world I live in

Yes but WHY does science work ?

Because it works...

flipdewaf wrote:

I don't know what those acronyms mean,

NdGT = Neil deGrasse Tyson
NPC = Non-Person Character

flipdewaf wrote:

...do you mean should I be skeptical about being skeptical?

Yes !!

flipdewaf wrote:

You are correct, what you said was I am like the people who led to the rise of Nazism in Germany...

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. I trust that anyone reading our correspondence will see whether or not I called you a Nazi.

Maybe show my words to a co-worker/friend of yours and ask them whether I called you a Nazi ?

flipdewaf wrote:

are you denying that we have made progress through the use of the scientific method?

Huh ? Where do you even get such an idea ??

Still, since you brought it up, “science” has given us Eugenics, Nuclear Bombs, and Chemical Warfare.

To boldly assert that all of Science is inherently good is to adhere to the same dogma which you criticize religious people of.

Science says nothing; scientists do.

flipdewaf wrote:

I think after reading what you are saying that you would only accept that someone is a genuine christian if they have a level of philosophical training that you purport to have and have studied to that level...

Nope. I also firmly believe that the inner witness and working of the Holy Spirit is sufficient grounds for belief in God.

flipdewaf wrote:

...if someone tells you they are a believer then what do you ask them?

I don't know. Maybe I'd ask how they came to believe in God ? Or what Bible translation they use ??

flipdewaf wrote:

Can't tell if its cod haddock or bovine excrement I can smell.

It's most likely a Red Herring https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

flipdewaf wrote:

Its funny because you keep saying you are not carrying on talk and yet you come crawling back.

I guess I'm holding out hope that a light will flick on for you.

How do you move from a strictly evolutionary study of our specie to humans as ethical, political, and rational. It must first begin with that study of evolutionary human behavior. Then kind of like the 'i' (square root of minus 1) some sort of useful, ineffable, transcendent or pantheistic and universal fictive is postulated. It does not have to be god let alone a theistic god. But it is a jump in faith. I have no problem with rejecting a theistic god, but the question the reject-er must answer is what is the basis of your leap.

I am mostly these days interested in all the implications of evolution and human behavior. The various leaps all have their problems, but underlying evolutionary behavior is the best predictor of how people, groups, and governments act.

ER757 wrote:

In the movie Contact, Jody Foster's character asks her Dad if he thinks there's life elsewhere as she looks into the night sky. His answer was perfect - " it sure seems like a big waste of space if there isn't."

Loved that film and it irked me to no end when the 'council of global scientific minds' upon Matthew McConaughy appeal with the 'faith in god thing'...the one female chairperson states 'Most of the planet believes in some higher being. Should we not send a representative of someone reflective of those views?'

I was like WTF? You want to send a moron as the ambassador of Earth to beings who've developed the means to traverse regions of the galaxy or even the universe via a wormhole in an instant? Why not send them loaded down with a few nicely wrapped X-mas gifts too? I'd think' the beings' would rather the traveler be at least someone smart enough to understand the complicated method/language to figure out the matrix required to build the structure in the 1st place over someone 'armed' with faith'...I have skip over that part every time I watch it because it trips all over itself with that ignorance. Like the Aliens have a clue to who jesus is...."Oh yeah, we have on of those too, except our guy needed more nails because we have four arms...."

BN747

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What makes you so sure philosophy is correct?

Congratulations ! You have just displayed the first hint of critical thought !! The answer to your question is:

http://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884

flipdewaf wrote:

I haven't had any [philosophical training], Where have I said that I have?

I never intimated that you did; you never needed to; your words are evidence enough. Interesting how I was able to correctly infer that from just your public words, huh ?

flipdewaf wrote:

...you seem to view philosphy as the be all and end all.

In terms of apprehending and analyzing truth claims, yes.

Newsflash: the 'Ph' in every PhD stands for Philosophy. This is because at the upper levels of education, it is acknowledged that philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge, even hard sciences.

flipdewaf wrote:

The only subject matter that can use itself as justification is maths

And yet, numbers and mathematics are immaterial abstract objects which cannot be empirically verified. Yet again, you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance of how philosophy undergirds all knowledge.

flipdewaf wrote:

So how do prove history historically?

Well, no lettered historian would use the word 'prove' when talking about history. History is about ascertaining levels of probability. I have already written on the importance of distinguishing between the scientific versus historical methods when examining historical claims, but you pretended to already know everything about it. Now, you ask how historians prove history ? Color me shocked.

Here, this Wikipedia article can give you a brief overiew of Historical Methods, and has some resources/links for you to follow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

flipdewaf wrote:

...this appears how you seem to be finding where god lay, and what is different about that and the other gods in history

1. If you think I've inferred that God exists based solely on historical methods, then you are again displaying your lack of reading comprehension skills; in my last post I stated quite clearly towards the beginning the way(s) in which I concluded that God exists. Please see above.
2. Name another "god" and what reason(s) there are for think that they might be the One True God.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Yes but WHY does science work ?

Because it works...

flipdewaf wrote:

I don't know what those acronyms mean,

NdGT = Neil deGrasse Tyson
NPC = Non-Person Character

flipdewaf wrote:

...do you mean should I be skeptical about being skeptical?

Yes !!

flipdewaf wrote:

You are correct, what you said was I am like the people who led to the rise of Nazism in Germany...

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. I trust that anyone reading our correspondence will see whether or not I called you a Nazi.

Maybe show my words to a co-worker/friend of yours and ask them whether I called you a Nazi ?

flipdewaf wrote:

are you denying that we have made progress through the use of the scientific method?

Huh ? Where do you even get such an idea ??

Still, since you brought it up, “science” has given us Eugenics, Nuclear Bombs, and Chemical Warfare.

To boldly assert that all of Science is inherently good is to adhere to the same dogma which you criticize religious people of.

Science says nothing; scientists do.

flipdewaf wrote:

I think after reading what you are saying that you would only accept that someone is a genuine christian if they have a level of philosophical training that you purport to have and have studied to that level...

Nope. I also firmly believe that the inner witness and working of the Holy Spirit is sufficient grounds for belief in God.

flipdewaf wrote:

...if someone tells you they are a believer then what do you ask them?

I don't know. Maybe I'd ask how they came to believe in God ? Or what Bible translation they use ??

flipdewaf wrote:

Can't tell if its cod haddock or bovine excrement I can smell.

It's most likely a Red Herring https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

flipdewaf wrote:

Its funny because you keep saying you are not carrying on talk and yet you come crawling back.

I guess I'm holding out hope that a light will flick on for you.

I don’t know what you mean by hoping for a light. It’s not dark.

Please refrain from posting biased sources for your arguments.

So I believe science to be the source of truth for maximising effectiveness in the physical world I live in. I have witnessed myself the repeatable successes of its benefits and I tried to show you those successes. You seemed to have some sort o rebuttal as to weather I think nuclear weapons are progress but that is surely an opinion down to the individual.

You also mocked my use of trying to prove it works by showing examples of it working but you forget that you said god should be worshipped because he’s god. Meh

If I live in a physical world and god does not manifest itself in this world then too all practical purposes it doesn’t exist and is materially unimportant. You all of a sudden claim that you have more evidence than you previously did. I’m interested in what I perceive to be reality because that is to all practical purposes reality and how I have to deal with it.

Fred

PS apologies for not quoting properly, it’s hard enough on my computer let along on a phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Above I commented re:film Contact and I stated...

"I was like WTF? You want to send a moron as the ambassador of Earth to beings who've developed the means to traverse regions of the galaxy or even the universe via a wormhole in an instant? "

As in meaning most Earthlings are indeed morons - it's who we are.
Don't anyone go getting all butt hurt...think about it - if most Earthlings were smart...we'd be in flying cars by now.
So that isn't true!

Or Most of the Earthlings range in a space between near moron to almost 'smart'.

Or Majority are morons.
Which I think is more valid because the majority of Earthlings are in a constant mode of survivalism, not much more beyond the preoccupied caveman consciousness of 'what's to eat, now'...which probably didn't nudge much until raiding, raping and pillaging of the Mongols or there abouts.

BN747

dik909 wrote:

And yet, numbers and mathematics are immaterial abstract objects which cannot be empirically verified. Yet again, you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance of how philosophy undergirds all knowledge.

But numbers and mathematics have practical uses in the real world, the existence or otherwise of a god does not.

Fred
Edit: brief in a god is good for coercive control of populations for both good and evil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BN747

If you choose not listen to anyone but your priest..then that's a perfect safe zone for you.

That is what I am trying to impress on you, I do not listen to my Priest. The Church is corrupted, has been for many, many years. These are my personal feelings and after entering a certain age, one thinks of the end which we all have. That is the only thing fair in this life, certain death for all. I consider myself a common sense person, so I can not comprehend this as an accident of what? Nobody knows, nobody will know. I certainly do not, nor you or scientists. They can hypothesize, that is all. We all do, the great unanswerable mystery.

I

scbriml wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Show me proof that there is no Grand Design.

As a general concept, it's pretty difficult to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, I cannot prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, but I can point to heaps of surveys, searches and analysis, the lack of verifiable observations, the lack of physical evidence like fossils or bones, etc. and reach the perfectly reasonable conclusion that, in all probability, Nessie doesn't exist.

As for your other questions, science has pretty good answers for all of those. Science and intelligence derive from primitive man observing things, trying things and then asking questions - What makes that happen?

I agree, but I cannot get by the beginning and where we stand today. we have done much, learned much, but yet we have not answered the question, where did this all begin? It is too complicated to me to be an accident. There has to be something to have an accident. This is all my personal feelings, based on nothing but my feelings on the subject.

flipdewaf wrote:

Please refrain from posting biased sources for your arguments.

Stahp !! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

flipdewaf wrote:

So I believe science to be the source of truth for maximising effectiveness in the physical world I live in. I have witnessed myself the repeatable successes of its benefits and I tried to show you those successes.

I do believe we're approaching an impasse: you continue to ignore the many questions I've put to you, and are simply unable/unwilling to allow for what people much smarter than you allow for -- that is, the philosophical foundations of your beliefs which you assume without justification.

flipdewaf wrote:

You also mocked my use of trying to prove it works by showing examples of it working but you forget that you said god should be worshipped because he’s god. Meh

There's quite a difference between pointing out someone's faulty reasoning, and mocking them. I am simply not the mocking type. Perhaps a psychologist is better equipped to explain why you perceived my pointing out your faulty reasoning as me mocking you..?

flipdewaf wrote:

If I live in a physical world and god does not manifest itself in this world then too all practical purposes it doesn’t exist and is materially unimportant. You all of a sudden claim that you have more evidence than you previously did. I’m interested in what I perceive to be reality because that is to all practical purposes reality and how I have to deal with it.

You're presuming that God doesn't manifest in this physical world, because you first assume that God doesn't exist. Please, stop feigning intellectual neutrality because you have already confessed your biases and basically declared that seeking God is pointless.

You have multiply confessed your lack of knowledge or training in philosophy (of science)/theology/epistemology. Therefore, I think that one is well-justified in rejecting any truth claim you've made in this thread with respect to God's existence.

flipdewaf wrote:

PS apologies for not quoting properly, it’s hard enough on my computer let along on a phone.

No worries.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

And yet, numbers and mathematics are immaterial abstract objects which cannot be empirically verified. Yet again, you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance of how philosophy undergirds all knowledge.

But numbers and mathematics have practical uses in the real world, the existence or otherwise of a god does not.

Relevance ? Did I ever insinuate that mathematics weren’t useful ?? No. I was simply pointing out that numbers/mathematics cannot themselves be physically sensed, or empirically verified. They exist only in minds.

If you write a seven on a page of paper, is what you wrote the number seven ? Or is it merely a representation of the idea of seven ?? This is your logical inconsistency: you reject God because you say that He cannot be scientifically verified, but the numbers/mathematics whose truth you presuppose also cannot be scientifically verified.

You are being inconsistent, and inconsistency is a sign of a failed worldview.

==============================================================

I think we've beaten this horse to death. You are simply refusing to acknowledge your philosophical assumptions. You have admitted that you have no philosophical training, and refuse to humble yourself to the possibility that you might be wrong about something.

(Yes, I could be wrong too. I used to be a non-believer, but I am constantly reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence; after all, intellectual honesty means following the evidence where it leads to, despite where we want it to lead to).

Go ahead, you can have the last world, but I will not be replying. Good day.

**word

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747

If you choose not listen to anyone but your priest..then that's a perfect safe zone for you.

That is what I am trying to impress on you, I do not listen to my Priest. The Church is corrupted, has been for many, many years. These are my personal feelings and after entering a certain age, one thinks of the end which we all have. That is the only thing fair in this life, certain death for all. I consider myself a common sense person, so I can not comprehend this as an accident of what? Nobody knows, nobody will know. I certainly do not, nor you or scientists. They can hypothesize, that is all. We all do, the great unanswerable mystery.

I

Hmm, you get the church is corrupt and loaded down with century after Century of atrocious behavior and YOU, in face of all that somehow reached the conclusion that this is place to set up your final tent??? I get that right?

BN747

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Please refrain from posting biased sources for your arguments.

Stahp !! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

flipdewaf wrote:

So I believe science to be the source of truth for maximising effectiveness in the physical world I live in. I have witnessed myself the repeatable successes of its benefits and I tried to show you those successes.

I do believe we're approaching an impasse: you continue to ignore the many questions I've put to you, and are simply unable/unwilling to allow for what people much smarter than you allow for -- that is, the philosophical foundations of your beliefs which you assume without justification.

I live in a physical world and understand things on their practical basis, I care little for entering in to redundant conversations pertaining to a truth that we can never know when the world we live in requires practical assumptions.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

You also mocked my use of trying to prove it works by showing examples of it working but you forget that you said god should be worshipped because he’s god. Meh

There's quite a difference between pointing out someone's faulty reasoning, and mocking them. I am simply not the mocking type. Perhaps a psychologist is better equipped to explain why you perceived my pointing out your faulty reasoning as me mocking you..?

I wouldn't expect anything less than a holier than though statement.

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

If I live in a physical world and god does not manifest itself in this world then too all practical purposes it doesn’t exist and is materially unimportant. You all of a sudden claim that you have more evidence than you previously did. I’m interested in what I perceive to be reality because that is to all practical purposes reality and how I have to deal with it.

You're presuming that God doesn't manifest in this physical world, because you first assume that God doesn't exist. Please, stop feigning intellectual neutrality because you have already confessed your biases and basically declared that seeking God is pointless.

Please state how you know I'm against god existing? The christian god does strike me as a bit of a tw4t but I'm above thinking somethings existence has anything to do with whether I like it or not. I'm not particularly keen on The Donald but I know he's there.

My view on the world is very much like my view on sex, open to anything but do not assume anything goes.

Seeking god is pointless as it has no practical benefits knowing whether it is there or not, the act of attempting to find him has a practical drawback as it takes resources better spent else ware. Where are gods manifestations in the physical world? not of course using symbols on a page.

dik909 wrote:

You have multiply confessed your lack of knowledge or training in philosophy (of science)/theology/epistemology. Therefore, I think that one is well-justified in rejecting any truth claim you've made in this thread with respect to God's existence.

What claims have I made about gods existence, I have only ever said I don' know

dik909 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

PS apologies for not quoting properly, it’s hard enough on my computer let along on a phone.

No worries.

flipdewaf wrote:

dik909 wrote:

And yet, numbers and mathematics are immaterial abstract objects which cannot be empirically verified. Yet again, you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance of how philosophy undergirds all knowledge.

But numbers and mathematics have practical uses in the real world, the existence or otherwise of a god does not.

Relevance ? Did I ever insinuate that mathematics weren’t useful ?? No. I was simply pointing out that numbers/mathematics cannot themselves be physically sensed, or empirically verified. They exist only in minds.

If you write a seven on a page of paper, is what you wrote the number seven ? Or is it merely a representation of the idea of seven ?? This is your logical inconsistency: you reject God because you say that He cannot be scientifically verified, but the numbers/mathematics whose truth you presuppose also cannot be scientifically verified.

yes, numbers cannot be scientifically verified but they have practical usefulness which we can use to change and predict the future, god, not so much.

dik909 wrote:

You are being inconsistent, and inconsistency is a sign of a failed worldview.

==============================================================

I think we've beaten this horse to death. You are simply refusing to acknowledge your philosophical assumptions. You have admitted that you have no philosophical training, and refuse to humble yourself to the possibility that you might be wrong about something.

Maybe I live in a real world where assumptions are a daily requirement and one has to accept that we might be wrong at any time. You can sit there and talk about philosophy like a drunk undergraduate who is wearing his first corduroy jacket or you can actually do something, I prefer to take an active part in shaping the world, be it with a god or not, makes no difference.

dik909 wrote:

(Yes, I could be wrong too. I used to be a non-believer, but I am constantly reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence; after all, intellectual honesty means following the evidence where it leads to, despite where we want it to lead to).

When do you next think the T-Rex in LA will get angry and cause an earth quake again? maybe he went on holiday to Japan and thats what caused the Fukishima issues.
If we assume that the invisible T-Rex exists then we should not rule out that that was the cause of the Japan earthquakes. Oh my word! if you think about it that can be the only real source of godzilla stories, we already now he likes holidaying in Japan and that he caused the earthquake in 1994.

dik909 wrote:

Go ahead, you can have the last world, but I will not be replying. Good day.

The last world eh, an incredibly funny Freudian slip.

@ dik909

You are against everyone and everything. That is clear.

You clearly stated that god decides. So why you and I disagree on some basic things? Based on your posts god has made decisions for us all before we are born. So why worship? You clearly have said that we cannot choose, god does for it to us.

You know philosophy rarely proves anything, science does.

Looking for god is like looking the end of the globe. Something like that by Stephen Hawking. The smart part is that many people say they have found the end like you while it is impossible. Keep searching... I don't have to. I'm perfectly happy without knowing if there is god or not. After all based on what you have written god has chosen whether I go to heaven or hell. I can live whit that.

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747

If you choose not listen to anyone but your priest..then that's a perfect safe zone for you.

That is what I am trying to impress on you, I do not listen to my Priest. The Church is corrupted, has been for many, many years. These are my personal feelings and after entering a certain age, one thinks of the end which we all have. That is the only thing fair in this life, certain death for all. I consider myself a common sense person, so I can not comprehend this as an accident of what? Nobody knows, nobody will know. I certainly do not, nor you or scientists. They can hypothesize, that is all. We all do, the great unanswerable mystery.

I

Hmm, you get the church is corrupt and loaded down with century after Century of atrocious behavior and YOU, in face of all that somehow reached the conclusion that this is place to set up your final tent??? I get that right?

BN747

When did I say that or even hint that. I will say once again that I have trouble accepting this as an accident, a big bang. This tiny fragment in the Cosmos just happened to land in the exact spot in our solar system with a Sun just the right distance to never mind create, but sustain life and all this beauty and the horrors evolved? Now that is as much of a stretch as a Supreme Entity. You and I will find out, or we will not eventually.

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747

If you choose not listen to anyone but your priest..then that's a perfect safe zone for you.

That is what I am trying to impress on you, I do not listen to my Priest. The Church is corrupted, has been for many, many years. These are my personal feelings and after entering a certain age, one thinks of the end which we all have. That is the only thing fair in this life, certain death for all. I consider myself a common sense person, so I can not comprehend this as an accident of what? Nobody knows, nobody will know. I certainly do not, nor you or scientists. They can hypothesize, that is all. We all do, the great unanswerable mystery.

I

Hmm, you get the church is corrupt and loaded down with century after Century of atrocious behavior and YOU, in face of all that somehow reached the conclusion that this is place to set up your final tent??? I get that right?

BN747

When did I say that or even hint that. I will say once again that I have trouble accepting this as an accident, a big bang. This tiny fragment in the Cosmos just happened to land in the exact spot in our solar system with a Sun just the right distance to never mind create, but sustain life and all this beauty and the horrors evolved? Now that is as much of a stretch as a Supreme Entity. You and I will find out, or we will not eventually.

You did not quite say that but I was left with the impression that you approach was 'the accident' can't be .. of course it is no answer and not good enough for most of us.

If you only knew the odds of the vastness you cannot perceive...you'd realize that against such numbers...as good as you think this place is, the Universe has spectacular existences you cannot begin imagine. Thing is, you can find or see them...without searching.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Hmm, you get the church is corrupt and loaded down with century after Century of atrocious behavior and YOU, in face of all that somehow reached the conclusion that this is place to set up your final tent??? I get that right?

BN747

When did I say that or even hint that. I will say once again that I have trouble accepting this as an accident, a big bang. This tiny fragment in the Cosmos just happened to land in the exact spot in our solar system with a Sun just the right distance to never mind create, but sustain life and all this beauty and the horrors evolved? Now that is as much of a stretch as a Supreme Entity. You and I will find out, or we will not eventually.

You did not quite say that but I was left with the impression that you approach was 'the accident' can't be .. of course it is no answer and not good enough for most of us.

If you only knew the odds of the vastness you cannot perceive...you'd realize that against such numbers...as good as you think this place is, the Universe has spectacular existences you cannot begin imagine. Thing is, you can find or see them...without searching.

BN747

We were discussing this issue today at lunch, and there was no disagreement among us about looking around and saying, How did this just happen? When I look at the cosmos, it makes me think even more about the mystery of creation or evolution. How can this be????

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

When did I say that or even hint that. I will say once again that I have trouble accepting this as an accident, a big bang. This tiny fragment in the Cosmos just happened to land in the exact spot in our solar system with a Sun just the right distance to never mind create, but sustain life and all this beauty and the horrors evolved? Now that is as much of a stretch as a Supreme Entity. You and I will find out, or we will not eventually.

You did not quite say that but I was left with the impression that you approach was 'the accident' can't be .. of course it is no answer and not good enough for most of us.

If you only knew the odds of the vastness you cannot perceive...you'd realize that against such numbers...as good as you think this place is, the Universe has spectacular existences you cannot begin imagine. Thing is, you can find or see them...without searching.

BN747

We were discussing this issue today at lunch, and there was no disagreement among us about looking around and saying, How did this just happen? When I look at the cosmos, it makes me think even more about the mystery of creation or evolution. How can this be????

I missed something...what can what be?

BN747

BN747 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

You did not quite say that but I was left with the impression that you approach was 'the accident' can't be .. of course it is no answer and not good enough for most of us.

If you only knew the odds of the vastness you cannot perceive...you'd realize that against such numbers...as good as you think this place is, the Universe has spectacular existences you cannot begin imagine. Thing is, you can find or see them...without searching.

BN747

We were discussing this issue today at lunch, and there was no disagreement among us about looking around and saying, How did this just happen? When I look at the cosmos, it makes me think even more about the mystery of creation or evolution. How can this be????

I missed something...what can what be?

BN747

I don’t know but if you find it be sure to find the most illiterate part of the world and explain your evidence through easily misinterpreted stories that cannot be untangled from moral fables. That’s the best way to get across this very important information.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WarRI1 wrote:

Show me proof that there is no Grand Design.

Playing teacher to your willfull ignorance is the job of absolutely no-one. You're the one who nurses an archaic belief system, thus the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.

B777LRF wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Show me proof that there is no Grand Design.

Playing teacher to your willfull ignorance is the job of absolutely no-one. You're the one who nurses an archaic belief system, thus the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.

Willful ignorance???? Show me! Show me some proof that you are not the willfully ignorant one. I can question, I can wonder about those who are willfully ignorant know it all's without knowing a damn provable thing.