Mockingbird 0 #451 April 30, 2008 Quote Quote I didn't say the beginning HAD to be attributed to a deity. I said it had to be attributed to a cause. Science may not know what the cause was, but when they close their minds to the most obvious possibility, it damages science's (or rather those who represent science) integrity. How does it damage science if scientist discount the theory of a creator, because thus so far no evidence exist to support a creator theory?? and dare I ask how is your god/creator theory the "most obvious possibility"?? There is LOTS (to use the technical term ) of evidence indicating DESIGN in the universe. Or have you not discovered that aspect of the universe? When someone who calls himself or herself a scientist ignores that evidence, yes, it most definitely damages his credibility. Thank God, not all scientists DO ignore the evidence... some note the evidence but admit that they have a bias and can't let the evidence affect their conclusions (Crick, Jastrow, Dawkins, Lewontin, TNAF). Of course this makes them not entirely objective, and it seems to me that a scientist ought to be objective... but, they are, after all, only human...Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #452 April 30, 2008 QuoteI disagree with your conclusion, and do not feel it is has been justified.Quote OK, I'll try one more time and if you can't at least see my point I'll give up. Now whatever you do, try not to think about cheese. Clear your mind of all cheese related thoughts. All the experiment has done is to show that what people perceive as being the moment of concious decision is preceeded by an unconcious thought process. Now I think that simply pushing a button is something that is so mind bogglingly easy that it takes literally no concious thought to do. In fact I'm damn sure I can push a button while driving or reciting Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet or deciding what cheese to put in my sandwich for lunch. In order to test concious decision making, you need to test concious decisions, not unconcious ones. Secondly, in order for free will to be challenged by this experiement, you have to define the moment that free will is excercised as the moment at which the person percieves the decision has been made. I suggest that these two moments may not be the same. Perception may not be reality. Now at the beginning of this post, I asked you not to think about cheese so naturally the first thing you did was think about cheese. It is also quite likely that you thought of a particular type of cheese. So if I now ask you to name a type of cheese right now, there is a pretty good chance that you'll name the cheese you thought of when I first told you not to think about cheese. If you know you'll need to make a decision at some point in the future, you automatically start thinking about it now and there is a distinct posibility that your decision will be made well ahead of time, even if you are specifically told not to decide immediately. That's why I think the experiment may not support the conclusions. QuoteThe Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical relation which seems to be nonsensical in the earliest stages of the universe, particularly at t=0. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #453 April 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI dont undertand how an atheists testimony would be a testimony to the power of faith. QuoteIt is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roads; only a few of them go through Jesus. And again, there is nothing wrong with that path, just as there is nothing wrong with the path others have chosen. This is illogical. But then relativism always is. How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other (as to how salvation, or whatever, is attained)... which they most certainly do? They're equally valid because the benefit is subjective, whether it be salvation, inner peace, enlightenment, or some sort of free pass through life. Whatever floats your boat. :) linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,595 #454 April 30, 2008 QuoteDeception is not abstract and it is how evil operates. If you dont understand that, then your thinking is not set on listening to truth, but is fashioned completely against me. How stunningly arrogant! Again - just because some bad people deceive themselves does not mean that they are being deceived! You only think that this point is convincing evidence because you have already assumed your conclusion. QuoteIf you consider the balance for a moment of good and evil then you would understand that something is balancing it. What 'Balance'? QuoteThe same wisdom that science has proven over and over again to be smarter than us. Gravity, a purpose, oxygen, a purpose, carbon dioxide, a purpose, the perfectly self sustaining balance of nature, a purpose, the ocean, a purpose, the rotation of the earth, a purpose, polar ice caps, a purpose, natural disasters, a purpose, fire, rain, even tragedy. I mean the evidence of wisdom is all around us, yet mans pride wants to believe they have the true wisdom, when all they do, and all they will ever do is prove what has already had a purpose. Again, assuming your conclusion. Those things can only be said to have a purpose if we, human beings, are the intended object. Your arrogance score is getting higher. QuoteMankind has a knowledge of good and evil, yes? We apply the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' to certain things. We won't always agree on what is good or evil though. QuoteThat means that the balance is within us, yes? What balance? QuoteSo wisdom, which clearly gave purpose to everything (except maybe the mosquito) also gave purpose to us. No. QuoteIf we look at the earth as a place to sustain the balance of good and evil in the universes Why would we do that? QuoteIf wisdom balances good and evil collectively in a dimension of time and space that is only known to us and seen by us, then clearly we see that we are made in wisdoms image. If my dog is an all powerful psychic keeping the world in harmony, then clearly by feeding it and providing it with shelter I am saving the world. I'll find it pretty hard to support that if though, and so will you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #455 April 30, 2008 You clearly have a strong conviction in your beliefs (faith) but I can't see any evidence to support them. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites danornan 79 #456 April 30, 2008 Interesting thread but there is one main problem; religion is strictly FAITH and BELIEF. There is nothing logical about religion. Way too many contradictions. Want to believe in the tooth fairy? Fine! Tell me the difference between a fable and a bible story. Bibles and individual testimony are not considered reliable reference, so you either believe and have faith or you don't. Don't try to use your "buffet" logic of the hour or day. There is NOTHING logical about religion. It changes too much.Dano Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #457 April 30, 2008 QuoteIt is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roadsAtheists don't believe in the human spirit, the soul or afterlife. You are here and now, then you're dead and gone. That is their enlightenment. They have reached the apex of their meaning for life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #458 April 30, 2008 Quote When someone who calls himself or herself a scientist ignores that evidence, yes, it most definitely damages his credibility. Concur enthusiastically! Quote There is LOTS (to use the technical term ) of evidence indicating DESIGN in the universe. Or have you not discovered that aspect of the universe? Would you direct us, i.e., specify links & citations, to the repeatable, reproducible, physical public evidence "indicating design in the universe" about which you write? Or do you see physical processes that follow physical laws as evidence of design? Thank you. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DannHuff 0 #459 April 30, 2008 They just dismiss the absurd ones, like invisible omnipotent omniscient supernatural beings for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER exists. I think this should more correctly read "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that I accept, exists" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #460 April 30, 2008 QuoteWould you direct us, i.e., specify links & citations, to the repeatable, reproducible, physical public evidence "indicating design in the universe" about which you write? Or do you see physical processes that follow physical laws as evidence of design? I'd say so. Everything is designed, whether manmade or natural to work according to certain laws. So, yes, just as the engine in a vehicle always turns in the same direction to function properly , so, the Earth spins in one direction, and tips back and forth on its axis, giving us the seasons, thus, providing plants with their proper times of dormancy and growth to provide the fruit, which provide the seeds which continue the species. Why do I need a scientist writing a paper, mostly for the purpose of putting money in his pocket, to verify what I can readily observe out my window? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #461 April 30, 2008 Quote They just dismiss the absurd ones, like invisible omnipotent omniscient supernatural beings for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER exists. I think this should more correctly read "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that I accept, exists" No, Kallend got it right the first time. Just because you see evidence where there isn't any doesn't mean there is evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #462 April 30, 2008 Suggesting that those physical phenomena are 'Designed' implies an external intelligence, which is a stretch too far for me. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DannHuff 0 #463 April 30, 2008 No, Kallend got it right the first time. Just because you see evidence where there isn't any doesn't mean there is evidence. Just because you do not see evidence where there is evidence does not mean it is not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #453 April 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI dont undertand how an atheists testimony would be a testimony to the power of faith. QuoteIt is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roads; only a few of them go through Jesus. And again, there is nothing wrong with that path, just as there is nothing wrong with the path others have chosen. This is illogical. But then relativism always is. How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other (as to how salvation, or whatever, is attained)... which they most certainly do? They're equally valid because the benefit is subjective, whether it be salvation, inner peace, enlightenment, or some sort of free pass through life. Whatever floats your boat. :) linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,595 #454 April 30, 2008 QuoteDeception is not abstract and it is how evil operates. If you dont understand that, then your thinking is not set on listening to truth, but is fashioned completely against me. How stunningly arrogant! Again - just because some bad people deceive themselves does not mean that they are being deceived! You only think that this point is convincing evidence because you have already assumed your conclusion. QuoteIf you consider the balance for a moment of good and evil then you would understand that something is balancing it. What 'Balance'? QuoteThe same wisdom that science has proven over and over again to be smarter than us. Gravity, a purpose, oxygen, a purpose, carbon dioxide, a purpose, the perfectly self sustaining balance of nature, a purpose, the ocean, a purpose, the rotation of the earth, a purpose, polar ice caps, a purpose, natural disasters, a purpose, fire, rain, even tragedy. I mean the evidence of wisdom is all around us, yet mans pride wants to believe they have the true wisdom, when all they do, and all they will ever do is prove what has already had a purpose. Again, assuming your conclusion. Those things can only be said to have a purpose if we, human beings, are the intended object. Your arrogance score is getting higher. QuoteMankind has a knowledge of good and evil, yes? We apply the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' to certain things. We won't always agree on what is good or evil though. QuoteThat means that the balance is within us, yes? What balance? QuoteSo wisdom, which clearly gave purpose to everything (except maybe the mosquito) also gave purpose to us. No. QuoteIf we look at the earth as a place to sustain the balance of good and evil in the universes Why would we do that? QuoteIf wisdom balances good and evil collectively in a dimension of time and space that is only known to us and seen by us, then clearly we see that we are made in wisdoms image. If my dog is an all powerful psychic keeping the world in harmony, then clearly by feeding it and providing it with shelter I am saving the world. I'll find it pretty hard to support that if though, and so will you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #455 April 30, 2008 You clearly have a strong conviction in your beliefs (faith) but I can't see any evidence to support them. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites danornan 79 #456 April 30, 2008 Interesting thread but there is one main problem; religion is strictly FAITH and BELIEF. There is nothing logical about religion. Way too many contradictions. Want to believe in the tooth fairy? Fine! Tell me the difference between a fable and a bible story. Bibles and individual testimony are not considered reliable reference, so you either believe and have faith or you don't. Don't try to use your "buffet" logic of the hour or day. There is NOTHING logical about religion. It changes too much.Dano Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #457 April 30, 2008 QuoteIt is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roadsAtheists don't believe in the human spirit, the soul or afterlife. You are here and now, then you're dead and gone. That is their enlightenment. They have reached the apex of their meaning for life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #458 April 30, 2008 Quote When someone who calls himself or herself a scientist ignores that evidence, yes, it most definitely damages his credibility. Concur enthusiastically! Quote There is LOTS (to use the technical term ) of evidence indicating DESIGN in the universe. Or have you not discovered that aspect of the universe? Would you direct us, i.e., specify links & citations, to the repeatable, reproducible, physical public evidence "indicating design in the universe" about which you write? Or do you see physical processes that follow physical laws as evidence of design? Thank you. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DannHuff 0 #459 April 30, 2008 They just dismiss the absurd ones, like invisible omnipotent omniscient supernatural beings for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER exists. I think this should more correctly read "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that I accept, exists" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #454 April 30, 2008 QuoteDeception is not abstract and it is how evil operates. If you dont understand that, then your thinking is not set on listening to truth, but is fashioned completely against me. How stunningly arrogant! Again - just because some bad people deceive themselves does not mean that they are being deceived! You only think that this point is convincing evidence because you have already assumed your conclusion. QuoteIf you consider the balance for a moment of good and evil then you would understand that something is balancing it. What 'Balance'? QuoteThe same wisdom that science has proven over and over again to be smarter than us. Gravity, a purpose, oxygen, a purpose, carbon dioxide, a purpose, the perfectly self sustaining balance of nature, a purpose, the ocean, a purpose, the rotation of the earth, a purpose, polar ice caps, a purpose, natural disasters, a purpose, fire, rain, even tragedy. I mean the evidence of wisdom is all around us, yet mans pride wants to believe they have the true wisdom, when all they do, and all they will ever do is prove what has already had a purpose. Again, assuming your conclusion. Those things can only be said to have a purpose if we, human beings, are the intended object. Your arrogance score is getting higher. QuoteMankind has a knowledge of good and evil, yes? We apply the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' to certain things. We won't always agree on what is good or evil though. QuoteThat means that the balance is within us, yes? What balance? QuoteSo wisdom, which clearly gave purpose to everything (except maybe the mosquito) also gave purpose to us. No. QuoteIf we look at the earth as a place to sustain the balance of good and evil in the universes Why would we do that? QuoteIf wisdom balances good and evil collectively in a dimension of time and space that is only known to us and seen by us, then clearly we see that we are made in wisdoms image. If my dog is an all powerful psychic keeping the world in harmony, then clearly by feeding it and providing it with shelter I am saving the world. I'll find it pretty hard to support that if though, and so will you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #455 April 30, 2008 You clearly have a strong conviction in your beliefs (faith) but I can't see any evidence to support them. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danornan 79 #456 April 30, 2008 Interesting thread but there is one main problem; religion is strictly FAITH and BELIEF. There is nothing logical about religion. Way too many contradictions. Want to believe in the tooth fairy? Fine! Tell me the difference between a fable and a bible story. Bibles and individual testimony are not considered reliable reference, so you either believe and have faith or you don't. Don't try to use your "buffet" logic of the hour or day. There is NOTHING logical about religion. It changes too much.Dano Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #457 April 30, 2008 QuoteIt is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roadsAtheists don't believe in the human spirit, the soul or afterlife. You are here and now, then you're dead and gone. That is their enlightenment. They have reached the apex of their meaning for life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #458 April 30, 2008 Quote When someone who calls himself or herself a scientist ignores that evidence, yes, it most definitely damages his credibility. Concur enthusiastically! Quote There is LOTS (to use the technical term ) of evidence indicating DESIGN in the universe. Or have you not discovered that aspect of the universe? Would you direct us, i.e., specify links & citations, to the repeatable, reproducible, physical public evidence "indicating design in the universe" about which you write? Or do you see physical processes that follow physical laws as evidence of design? Thank you. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #459 April 30, 2008 They just dismiss the absurd ones, like invisible omnipotent omniscient supernatural beings for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER exists. I think this should more correctly read "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that I accept, exists" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #460 April 30, 2008 QuoteWould you direct us, i.e., specify links & citations, to the repeatable, reproducible, physical public evidence "indicating design in the universe" about which you write? Or do you see physical processes that follow physical laws as evidence of design? I'd say so. Everything is designed, whether manmade or natural to work according to certain laws. So, yes, just as the engine in a vehicle always turns in the same direction to function properly , so, the Earth spins in one direction, and tips back and forth on its axis, giving us the seasons, thus, providing plants with their proper times of dormancy and growth to provide the fruit, which provide the seeds which continue the species. Why do I need a scientist writing a paper, mostly for the purpose of putting money in his pocket, to verify what I can readily observe out my window? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #461 April 30, 2008 Quote They just dismiss the absurd ones, like invisible omnipotent omniscient supernatural beings for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER exists. I think this should more correctly read "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that I accept, exists" No, Kallend got it right the first time. Just because you see evidence where there isn't any doesn't mean there is evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #462 April 30, 2008 Suggesting that those physical phenomena are 'Designed' implies an external intelligence, which is a stretch too far for me. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #463 April 30, 2008 No, Kallend got it right the first time. Just because you see evidence where there isn't any doesn't mean there is evidence. Just because you do not see evidence where there is evidence does not mean it is not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #464 April 30, 2008 How very imaginative. Did you come up with that on your own? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #465 April 30, 2008 QuoteHow very imaginative. Did you come up with that on your own? I wasn't trying to be smart. There was a point. The line of argument used is not valid as the opposite applies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #466 April 30, 2008 As soon as someone, anyone produces evidence of any deity then yes you would have a valid argument. To date that has never happened. The "evidence" that you and others have pointed to does not qualify as evidence by anyones definition of the word evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #467 April 30, 2008 QuoteI'd say so. Everything is designed, whether manmade or natural to work according to certain laws. So, yes, just as the engine in a vehicle always turns in the same direction to function properly , so, the Earth spins in one direction, and tips back and forth on its axis, giving us the seasons, thus, providing plants with their proper times of dormancy and growth to provide the fruit, which provide the seeds which continue the species. Do you know what begging the question means? You can't assume that the Earth's purpose is to support life in order to support your claim that the Earth was designed to support life.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #468 April 30, 2008 QuoteThis is illogical. But then relativism always is. How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other (as to how salvation, or whatever, is attained)... which they most certainly do? There are many paths up the mountain, but they all reach the same summit.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #469 April 30, 2008 QuoteThank God, not all scientists DO ignore the evidence... some note the evidence but admit that they have a bias and can't let the evidence affect their conclusions (Crick, Jastrow, Dawkins, Lewontin, TNAF). Have they? Where?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #470 April 30, 2008 QuoteThis is illogical. But then relativism always is. How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other (as to how salvation, or whatever, is attained)... which they most certainly do? You think that's illogical?! Each one of those religions has the same amount of evidence to back them up and each claim to be the one true religion and make promises that will only be fulfilled once you die. To top it off no one has ever returned from death to confirm that they actually received what was promised by their religion. Pretty raw deal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #471 April 30, 2008 QuoteNow at the beginning of this post, I asked you not to think about cheese so naturally the first thing you did was think about cheese. Actually, my first thought regarding that statement had nothing to do with cheese. QuoteThat's why I think the experiment may not support the conclusions. We'll have to agree to disagree QuoteWhy? Because h is a constant, 4 is a constant and pi pi is a constant. At t=0, E is infinite and x is undefined (the universe does not exist in spacial dimensions; spacial dimensions are a part of the universe). At least one of these must be defined for (delta E · delta t) or (delta x · delta p) to be a defined number.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #472 April 30, 2008 So?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #473 April 30, 2008 >Atheists don't believe in the human spirit, the soul or afterlife. >You are here and now, then you're dead and gone. >That is their enlightenment. Right. And Christians have no innate morality. They do whatever the Bible says because they don't want to be punished in a fire-filled cavern; if a priest told them to kill someone they would as long as they thought they would get their heavenly reward. (Yes, the two statements above make about as much sense, which is none.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #474 April 30, 2008 >So, yes, just as the engine in a vehicle always turns in the same direction to function properly . . . The traction motor in my car spins both directions. Does that mean it was not designed? >the Earth spins in one direction, and tips back and forth on its axis, >giving us the seasons, thus, providing plants with their proper times of >dormancy and growth to provide the fruit, which provide the seeds which >continue the species. Well, that usually works OK. Now that the seasons are getting warmer earlier, many species are having problems. Fortunately, evolution provides the tools to allow those species to change to meet the requirements of the changing world. Life adapts to its environment, not the other way around. > Why do I need a scientist writing a paper, mostly for the purpose of > putting money in his pocket, to verify what I can readily observe out my > window? Because even though there are quarks outside your window, they're hard to see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #475 April 30, 2008 >This is illogical. But then relativism always is. We are all relativists. >How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other . . . The Bible contradicts _itself._ That doesn't mean it's not valid. The validity of a religion is akin to the validity of a country. Is there only one "true" country? After all, they all have slightly different governing/economic/military policies. Does that mean that they are all wrong except for one? I don't think so. I think a country with policies that work is as valid as a country with another set of policies that work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
